P336 Endoscopic scores as predictors of treatment failure in Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The endoscopic Mayo score (MS) is the most frequent score used for the evaluation of inflammatory activity in Ulcerative Colitis (UC), varying from 0 to 3 points. Recently the DUBLIN score (DS) emerged, which varies from 0 to 9 points and results from the product of the MS and the disease extent, according to Montreal classification, E1-E3. In this study we aimed to evaluate and compare the predictive ability of MS and DS for long term treatment failure. Methods A retrospective and unicentric study was conducted, including patients with left-sided or extensive UC, asymptomatic and without the need for steroid therapy or therapy changes in the 6 months prior to undergoing total colonoscopy with calculation of MS and DS. Treatment failure was evaluated, defined by the need for therapy changes and/or hospitalization because of disease exacerbation, over a follow-up period of a minimum of 24 months and a maximum of 84 months. Results A total of 204 patients were included, 104 (51%) females and with a mean age at diagnosis of 36.4±12.7 years. In the initial evaluation, 48 (23.5%) were being treated with anti-TNFα medication. The mean values of MS were 1.0±1.1 points and of DS were 2.2±2.6 points. During follow-up, 32 (15.7%) patients experienced treatment failure and patients initially treated with anti-TNFα medication had 2.3 times higher risk of treatment failure (p=0.042). MS values (AUC 0.809; p<0.001; with sensitivity of 0.938 and specificity of 0.529 for values equal or superior to 1) and DS values (AUC 0.789; p<0.001; with sensitivity of 0.844 and specificity of 0.581 for values equal or superior to 2) had good discriminative abilities in predicting treatment failure. There were no statistically significant differences in the discriminative ability between both scores (p=0.340). Conclusion MS and DS had good discriminative abilities in predicting treatment failure. However, the integration of the disease extent in the DS as a complement of MS in the evaluation of UC was not associated with a higher predictive ability of long term treatment failure.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".