Dynamic Prediction of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopic surveillance is recommended in patients with colonic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) given their increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to develop and validate a dynamic prediction model for the occurrence of advanced colorectal neoplasia (aCRN, including high-grade dysplasia and CRC) in IBD. METHODS: We pooled data from 6 existing cohort studies from Canada, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Patients with IBD and an indication for CRC surveillance were included if they underwent at least 1 follow-up procedure. Exclusion criteria included prior aCRN, prior colectomy, or an unclear indication for surveillance. Predictor variables were selected based on the literature. A dynamic prediction model was developed using a landmarking approach based on Cox proportional hazard modeling. Model performance was assessed with Harrell's concordance-statistic (discrimination) and by calibration curves. Generalizability across surveillance cohorts was evaluated by internal-external cross-validation. RESULTS: The surveillance cohorts comprised 3731 patients, enrolled and followed-up in the time period from 1973 to 2021, with a median follow-up period of 5.7 years (26,336 patient-years of follow-up evaluation); 146 individuals were diagnosed with aCRN. The model contained 8 predictors, with a cross-validation median concordance statistic of 0.74 and 0.75 for a 5- and 10-year prediction window, respectively. Calibration plots showed good calibration. Internal-external cross-validation results showed medium discrimination and reasonable to good calibration. CONCLUSIONS: The new prediction model showed good discrimination and calibration, however, generalizability results varied. Future research should focus on formal external validation and relate predicted aCRN risks to surveillance intervals before clinical application.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".