MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206943256 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab232.314

P186 Can transabdominal bowel ultrasound accurately detect both small and large bowel Crohn Disease in pediatric patients when compared to MRE?

2022· article· en· W4206943256 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Hudson, Hien Q. Huynh, H Ma, A Kuc, J Kim, P Almeida, Matthew Carroll, Eytan Wine, Ann Thompson, Daniela Migliarese Isaac

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCrohn's diseaseGastroenterologyInflammatory bowel diseaseInternal medicineEndoscopyUltrasoundMagnetic resonance imagingDiseaseRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) has been the modality of choice to assess small bowel inflammation in patients with Crohn disease (CD). It can also assess large bowel when not feasible to assess endoscopically. Transabdominal bowel ultrasound (TABUS) is an attractive non-invasive tool to assess CD activity. Studies to date have focused on its correlation to large bowel endoscopic findings in adult CD. This study aimed to compare TABUS and MRE in identifying small and large bowel CD in pediatric patients. Methods Pediatric patients (≤18 years old) seen for suspected CD were prospectively enrolled and underwent baseline TABUS, endoscopy, MRE, blood work and stool studies. The Pediatric Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (PCDAI) and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) were used to assess disease activity. Bowel wall thickness (BWT) was assessed by TABUS and MRE. TABUS measurements were scored with the Simple Ultrasound Activity Score for Crohn Disease (SUS-CD) (0=≤3mm, 1=3–4.9mm, 2=5–7.9mm, 3=≥8mm). Pearson Chi-square was used to compare BWT between TABUS and MRE. Results 21 patients (71% male) were included, with a median age of 13 years (range 6–16). Median PCDAI was 40 (25–49) and SES-CD 15 (6.5–22). There was a high level of agreement between MRE and TABUS (Figure 1) with some disagreement in the jejunum (n=9/21, 43%). For terminal ileal (TI) disease where there was disagreement, endoscopy of TI was in agreement with TABUS in two patients and MRE in five patients. Endoscopic TI disease that was documented as normal on TABUS was mild (SES-CD 3). In patients with abnormal MRE, BWT was not significantly different between the two modalities (Table 1). In patients with normal MRE, TABUS SUS-CD scores were accurately 0 in almost all segments (score 1 in TI) (Table 2). TABUS correctly identified no fistulae and 2 small bowel strictures (identified at endoscopy), but did not detect 1 intra-abdominal abscess and 4 large bowel strictures (only 1 stricture seen on endoscopy). Excessive lymph nodes (>4) were successfully seen on TABUS in 10/16 patients. TABUS correctly identified 75% of patients with significant mesenteric fibrofatty proliferation. Hyperemia on TABUS corresponded to an abnormal MRE for that segment in 92–100% of small bowel and 50–86% of large bowel. Conclusion TABUS and MRE are comparable modalities in the assessment of small and large bowel disease in newly diagnosed pediatric CD patients. Assessment of proximal small bowel is complex, and MRE may over-call disease. MRE still plays an important role in assessing abscesses and mild large bowel narrowing. Hyperemia on TABUS is an important indicator of active bowel inflammation, and is particularly useful for endoscopically inaccessible small bowel.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→