MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4318580113 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac190.0427

P297 The Toronto IBD Global Endoscopic Reporting (TIGER) Score and its Ability to Predict Outcomes Regarding Steroid and Biologic Use in Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Patients – A Construct Validation Study

2023· article· en· W4318580113 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eran Zittan, Moshe Levy, L. Saban, Shiraz Vered, A. Hillary Steinhart, R Milgrom, IM Gralnek, Mark S. Silverberg, Shira Zelber‐Sagi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineUlcerative colitisTigerCalprotectinCrohn's diseaseProspective cohort studyGastroenterologyFaecal calprotectinCohortAdverse effectInflammatory bowel diseaseDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The recently developed TIGER endoscopy score was established to reliably describe disease severity as it can be utilized for both Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) patients.1The aim of this prospective study was to assess the TIGER score’s ability to predict UC and CD patient outcomes including biologic and steroid use. Methods A cohort of 78 patients with UC (n=40) and CD (n=38) were included in a 52-week multiple visit prospective study. Each visit included patient interviews using the IBD disk questionnaire, blood draws for C-reactive protein (CRP), and fecal calprotectin (FC). Endoscopy assessment was performed at baseline. Administration of steroids, immunomodulators (IMN), biologics, and dose escalations were recorded. Baseline total TIGER scores were dichotomized as <100 points (remission-mild endoscopic activity) or ≥100 points (moderate-severe endoscopic activity) as a predictor of therapeutic outcomes. Results At baseline, compared to patients with TIGER scores <100, UC patients with TIGER scores ≥100 had significantly higher CRP (p<0.0005), FC (p<0.0001), and IBD disk (p<0.0001). In CD patients, at baseline, compared to patients with TIGER scores <100, patients with TIGER scores ≥100 had significantly higher CRP (p<0.0006), FC ( p<0.006), and IBD disk ( p<0.0001). At 52-weeks, compared to patients with baseline TIGER scores <100, UC and CD patients with baseline TIGER scores ≥100 had a significantly increased likelihood of requiring steroids as therapy (p<0.0001). Specifically, 7.1% and 0% of UC and CD patients with baseline TIGER scores <100 required steroids compared to 73.1% and 48.3% of UC and CD patients with baseline TIGER scores ≥100, respectively. Moreover, at 52-weeks, compared to patients with baseline TIGER scores <100, UC and CD patients with baseline TIGER scores >100 both had a significantly increased likelihood of being prescribed or having to subsequently escalate biologic therapy (p<0.0001). More specifically, 7.1% and 11.1% of UC and CD patients with baseline TIGER scores <100 required biologic therapy compared to 92.3% and 100% of UC and CD patients with baseline TIGER scores ≥100, respectively. Conclusion The TIGER endoscopy score demonstrates significant association with CRP, FC and IBD disk in UC and CD patients. Moreover, the TIGER endoscopy score can be utilized as a measure to predict the likelihood of UC and CD patients with moderate-to-severe disease burden requiring certain therapeutic interventions. These data suggest that the TIGER score reflects disease burden and the subsequent need for pharmacologic intervention in both UC and CD patients. 1. Zittan E, et al. J Crohns Colitis 2022;16:544-553.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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