P360 Role of intestinal ultrasound scores in the diagnosis of post-operative recurrence in Crohn's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Ileocolonoscopy is the gold standard to evaluate post-operative recurrence (POR) in Crohn's disease (CD) patients. Rutgeerts endoscopic score remains the gold standard in the evaluation of post-operative recurrence in CD. Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is proposed as a non-invasive alternative to ileocolonoscopy for the diagnosis of POR, with a sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 84%. There are several IUS scores that evaluate CD disease activity such as SUS-CD (validated), IBUS-SAS and Simple US Score, which have not yet been studied in the diagnosis of POR. The aim of this study is to assess whether these ultrasound scores correlate with endoscopy in the diagnosis of PR. Methods A retrospective study was performed. Patients with CD who had undergone ileocecal resection, with both an ileocolonoscopy and intestinal ultrasound performed for the detection of POR were included. The time between tests was less than 6 months and there was no therapeutic change between tests. Endoscopic POR was evaluated with Rutgeers score (RS), considering POR RS ≥i2b. In IUS, were used: Simple US Score, SUS-CD and IBUS-SAS. Results Forty-five patients were included (female 48,89%, male 51,11%). The Montreal classification was: L1 n=22 (48,89%), L2=1 (2,22%), L3 n=22 (48,89%), B1 n=3 (6,67%), B2 24 (54,4%) and B3 n=18 (40%). 24 patients (53%) had no endoscopic POR, 6 (6%) had RS i2b and 15 (33.33%) had severe POR. The mean wall thickness measured by IUS was 4.39 mm (SD +/- 1.92) and 26 patients (57.77%) had hyperemia (Limberg score >1). The mean values for IUS scores were: Simple US Score 5.79 (SD +/- 2.81), SUS-CD 2.35 (SD +/- 1.62) and IBUS-SAS 34.04 (SD +/- 24.21). For the Simple US Score an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 80.65% (95% CI 67.7 - 93.6) was obtained, with a score ≥5.4. The sensitivity (S) was 95.24% and specificity (E) 66.67%. IBUS-SAS presented an AUC of 87% (95% CI 76.98 - 97.02), a result ≥28 granted a S 90.48% and E 70.83%. The SUS-CD index had an AUC of 79% (95% CI 76.98 - 97.92), a result ≥3 presented S 90.48% and E 62.5%. Conclusion In our experience, IUS scores (IBUS-SAS, SUS-CD and Simple US Score) show a high sensitivity in the diagnosis of POR.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".