OP15 High-definition white light endoscopy with segmental re-inspection is non-inferior compared to dye-based chromoendoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: the randomized controlled HELIOS trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients with colonic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergo endoscopic surveillance to detect and remove colorectal neoplasia (CRN). Although high-definition dye-based chromo-endoscopy (HD-CE) is the recommended modality in guidelines, high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) with matched procedural time may yield similar neoplasia detection rates. We designed a non-blinded, randomized controlled trial in four academic hospitals aiming to compare three endoscopic surveillance techniques in IBD patients for the outcome of CRN detection rate. Methods Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years and scheduled for colitis-associated CRN surveillance according to Dutch IBD surveillance guidelines. Patients were excluded in case of insufficient bowel cleansing, active colitis, or if >50% of the colon was resected. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to undergo HD-WLE with segmental re-inspection (SR), HD-CE, or single pass HD-WLE. The primary outcome was CRN detection rate, defined as the proportion of procedures in which macroscopic CRN was detected. Secondary outcomes included the number of CRN and withdrawal time. To demonstrate non-inferiority of HD-WLE with SR compared to HD-CE (one-sided testing, α=0.05, 1−β=0.8, non-inferiority (NI) margin -10%), and superiority compared to single-pass HD-WLE (two-sided testing, estimated CRN detection rate of 24% and 12%, respectively1) with Mantel-Haenszel analyses, a total of 566 patients were needed. Results In total, 666 patients were randomized, 563 fulfilled all study criteria and were analysed per protocol (table 1). Of these, 51.8% were male, with a median age of 51 years (interquartile range 35-63). CRN detection rates were 9.8% for HD-WLE with SR, 13.1% for HD-CE, and 6.1% for single pass HD-WLE. HD-WLE with SR was non-inferior compared to HD-CE (Δ-3.1%, lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.1 not exceeding the NI margin of -10%, p<.05). HD-WLE with SR was not superior compared to single-pass HD-WLE (Δ3.7%, 95% CI -2.5:9.1%, p=0.31). A significant difference was found between arms for the number of detected CRN (n=29 vs n=36 vs n=8 for HD-WLE with SR, HD-CE and single-pass HD-WLE, respectively (p=.04)) and withdrawal time (p=.03, table 1). One advanced lesion was detected (high-grade dysplasia in the HD-CE arm). Conclusion In this large, randomized controlled trial, HD-WLE with SR was non-inferior compared to HD-CE for CRN detection in IBD patients. HD-WLE with SR was not superior to single-pass HD-WLE, although this may have resulted from lower than expected neoplasia yields and subsequent lower power. These results suggest that HD-WLE with SR may provide a feasible alternative to HD-CE in clinical practice (NCT04291976). 1Imperatore et al. JCC 2019;13(6):714-24
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".