P492 All intestinal ultrasound scores for ulcerative colitis (and IBUS-SAS) strongly correlate with endoscopic activity: a prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is gaining increasing acceptance as a reliable tool for tight monitoring of ulcerative colitis (UC). Although several IUS scores have been proposed, none has been formally implemented into official recommendations of international scientific societies. This study aims to compare the available IUS score for UC, in terms of correlation with endoscopic activity. Methods Patients with UC ≥ 18 years old undergoing partial or full colonoscopy between April and October 2023 were prospectively included. Endoscopic evaluation of at least the sigmoid colon was mandatory for inclusion, and patients with proctitis (Montreal E1) were excluded. Endoscopic activity was scored with both the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (MES) and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS), and defined by MES ≥ 1 and UCEIS ≥ 2. IUS was performed within 4 weeks of endoscopy. The Milan Ultrasound Criteria (MUC, Allocca et al.), the UC-IUS score (Bots et al.), the US Score from Parente et al., and the score from Hata et al. were included in the analysis. Applicability of the US Score from Civitelli et al, an IUS score developed for paediatric patients, and the IBUS-SAS, an IUS score validated for Crohn’s disease, was also evaluated. The Spearman’s rank coefficient (rho = ρ) was used to perform correlations, while receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared with the Hanley & McNeil method. Results Fifty-nine patients were included, of which 59.3% and 50.8% showed any endoscopic activity using the MES and the UCEIS, respectively. Detailed information about the population is reported in Table. All the evaluated IUS scores showed a significant positive correlation with endoscopic activity (p < 0.001), with the UC-IUS score and the US Score from Civitelli et al. outperforming the others both with MES (ρ = 0.745, ρ = 0.762) and UCEIS (ρ = 0.751, ρ = 0.769). The same scores showed the highest Areas Under the Curve (AUC) for detecting a MES ≥ 2 (UC-IUS: 0.841, 95%CI 0.722-0.923, p < 0.001; Civitelli et al.: 0.842, 95%CI 0.724-0.924, p < 0.001) [Figure]. The optimal cut-offs for detecting a MES ≥ 2 with both the MUC and the Civitelli score were similar to that proposed by the Authors (> 5.04 vs > 6.20 and > 2 vs > 1, respectively). Conclusion All the included IUS scores showed good correlation with endoscopic activity. The UC-IUS and the US Score from Civitelli et al. performed better than the others in detecting a MES ≥ 2 and might be suggested to monitor disease activity of UC and intervene early during disease relapse.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".