What Is a Flare? The Manitoba Living With IBD Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Flare is a poorly defined term used by patients and clinicians to indicate inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) status. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of a single-item 7-point flare indicator relative to other measures of disease flare. METHODS: The longitudinal Manitoba Living with IBD Study followed persons with IBD for 1 year; they completed biweekly online surveys and provided 3 stool samples. Disease flare on a single-item flare indicator with 7 possible responses developed for the study was defined by report of symptoms as "moderately" or "much" worse. The flare indicator was evaluated against 5 measures of disease activity: fecal calprotectin score (FCAL), a 2-point disease status indicator, a 4-point flare certainty indicator, the IBD Symptom Index short form (SIBDSI), and the short form IBD Questionnaire (SIBDQ). Participants in a flare, based on the 7-point measure, were matched to a nonflaring participant, and a stool sample was collected. RESULTS: Of the 155 IBD participants, almost half (n = 74) experienced a flare. Of those who flared, 97.0% endorsed active IBD on the 2-point indicator (controls 42.5%; P < .001); 91.9% endorsed active IBD on the 4-point certainty indicator (controls 32.9%; P < .001); 90.5% endorsed active disease on the SIBDSI (controls 34.2%; P < .001); and 48.5% had an elevated FCAL (controls 34.3%; P < .05). The mean SIBDQ was lower for the flare group compared with controls (43.9 [SD 11.1] vs 58.3 [SD 8.5]; P < .001), indicating worse disease. CONCLUSIONS: The 7-point flare indicator robustly identified symptomatic flares. This patient self-report indicator reflected meaningful changes in more complex clinical indices and had only weak concordance with the presence of inflammation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".