Scoring Indices for Perianal Fistulising Crohn’s Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In this systematic review we summarise existing scoring indices for assessing disease activity and quality of life in perianal fistulising Crohn's disease [PFCD], and highlight gaps in the literature. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from August 24, 2022, to identify studies evaluating clinical, radiological, or patient-reported outcome measures [PROMS] in PFCD. The primary objective was to identify all available scoring indices and describe the operating properties of these indices. RESULTS: A total of 53 studies reported on the use of one clinical index [Perianal Disease Activity Index: PDAI], three PROMs, and 10 radiological indices; 25 studies evaluated the operating properties of these indices. The PDAI demonstrated content validity, construct validity, and responsiveness but criterion validity or reliability were not assessed. The Van Assche Index [VAI], modified VAI, and the Magnetic Resonance Index for Assessing Fistulas in Patients with CD [MAGNIFI-CD] were the most studied radiological indices. These indices demonstrated responsiveness and reliability. The VAI and MAGNIFI-CD demonstrated construct validity; criterion and content validity and feasibility have not been assessed. Among the three PROMs, the Crohn's Anal Fistula Quality of Life index demonstrated content and construct validity, inter-observer reliability, and responsiveness; criterion validity, intra-observer reliability, and feasibility have not been assessed for this index. CONCLUSIONS: There are no fully valid, reliable, and responsive clinical disease or radiological indices for PFCD. Although the radiological indices demonstrated responsiveness and reliability, well-defined cut-offs for response and remission are lacking. Future research should focus on establishing standardised definitions and thresholds for outcomes.
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 | 0.012 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".