The Impact of Confounders on Symptom–Endoscopic Discordances in Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Discordances between clinical and endoscopic Crohn’s disease (CD) activity indices negatively impact the utility of clinic visits and efficacy assessments in clinical trials. Bile acid diarrhea (BAD) and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) mimic CD symptoms. This study quantified the impact of BAD and SIBO on the relationship between clinical and endoscopic disease activity indices. Methods CD patients with 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one (7C4) serum measurements and/or SIBO breath tests and matched clinical and endoscopic scores were included. Clinical remission (stool frequency [SF] ≤ 1 and abdominal pain score ≤ 1) rates were compared between those with and without (1) endoscopic remission, (2) BAD (7C4 > 55 ng/mL), and (3) SIBO. Results Of 295 CD patients, 219 had SIBO testing and 87 had 7C4 testing. Patients with elevated 7C4 had lower proportions with clinical remission (14% vs 40%, P = .007) and SF ≤ 1 (14% vs 42%, P = .004) compared to those with normal 7C4. In patients with normal 7C4, higher rates of clinical remission (65% vs 27%, P = .01) and SF ≤ 1 (71% vs 27%, P = .003) existed in patients with endoscopic remission compared to those without endoscopic remission. Conversely, among the entire 295 patient cohorts, nearly identical clinical remission rates existed between those with and without endoscopic remission (25% vs 24%, P = .8), and the Crohn’s Disease Patient-Reported Outcome-2 score was not accurate for predicting endoscopic remission (Area Under the Curve (AUC): 0.48; 95% CI, 0.42–0.55). SIBO status did not impact clinical remission rates (P = 1.0). Conclusions BAD, but not SIBO, contributed to symptom scores. A relationship between endoscopic inflammation and clinical remission rates only existed in patients without 7C4 elevations.
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 | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".