[Improved Mayo Endoscopic Score has a higher value for evaluating clinical severity of ulcerative colitis].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of Improved Mayo Endoscopic Score (IMES) for evaluation of the clinical severity of ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical and endoscopic data of 167 patients diagnosed with UC in Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital from January, 2015 to November, 2021. The severity of endoscopic lesions was determined by Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES, 0-3 points) and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) score (0-8 points), and the scope of endoscopic lesions was evaluated based on the Montreal classification system. The IMES was established by combining the MES with the Montreal classification. RESULTS: =0.471) than MES and Montreal classification. An IMES score of 5 was of greater value than a MES score of 3, E3, and UCEIS≥6 for predicting the administration of systemic hormones, immunosuppressants, or surgery in the near future. CONCLUSION: IMES can better reflect the clinical severity of UC and has good correlations with the laboratory indicators of the patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".