ASSOCIATION BETWEEN HISTOLOGICAL INDICES AND ULCERATIVE COLITIS ACTIVITY MEASURES AMONG PATIENTS IN THE HICKORY (ETROLIZUMAB) OPEN-LABEL INDUCTION (OLI) COHORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cross-sectional studies in UC have shown an association between histological and clinical measures of disease activity, but few longitudinal studies have evaluated this relationship. Using open-label induction data from the HICKORY study (NCT02100696), we analyzed this correlation at end of induction. METHODS Baseline and Week 14 biopsies were scored using the Robarts histopathology index (RHI) and the Nancy histological index (NHI) in patients who had active baseline histology (NHI > 1 and RHI > 3) (n = 97). Histological outcomes were characterized by presence or absence of neutrophils. Pairwise associations were quantified by Spearman correlation and Cohen’s kappa coefficients. ΔRHI and ΔNHI comparison determined the presence of a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in Mayo Clinic score (MCS; ΔMCS ≥ 3). RESULTS At Week 14 22 %, 23 % and 8 % of patients achieved resolution of neutrophilic inflammation, endoscopic improvement (ES ≤ 1) and endoscopic remission (ES = 0), respectively; NHI ≤ 1 was achieved in 55 % (12/22) of patients with ES ≤ 1 and 75 % (6/8) of patients with ES = 0. ΔNHI and ΔRHI were highly correlated (ρ = 0.91). There was little to no association between laboratory results and ΔNHI/ΔRHI/ΔES. A weak correlation was seen between ΔNHI/ΔRHI and ΔES (ρ = 0.26-0.27) and between ΔNHI/ΔRHI and change in rectal bleeding and stool frequency. NHI, RHI and ES agreement with symptomatic outcomes were weak to moderate (κ = 0.28-0.45). Difference in the mean grouped by achievement of ΔMCS ≥ 3 suggests MCIDs in ΔNHI and ΔRHI of 1 and 9, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The analysis showed no associations between changes in histological scores and in laboratory results. The correlation was weak between histologic and endoscopic score change, and weak to modest between histologic scores and symptoms at the end of induction. Previously presented: Peyrin-Biroulet L et al. ECCO 2019. Publication History Article published online: 26 May 2020 © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".