Interobserver agreement of current and new proposed endoscopic scores for postoperative recurrence in Crohn’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The modified Rutgeerts score (mRS) is widely used for the assessment of endoscopic postoperative recurrence (ePOR) in Crohn's disease (CD) after ileocolic resection to guide therapeutic decisions. To improve the validity and prognostic value of this endoscopic assessment, 2 new scores have been proposed. This study assessed the interobserver agreement of the current score (mRS) and the new endoscopic score for ePOR in CD. METHODS: Sixteen Dutch academic and nonacademic inflammatory bowel disease specialists assessed endoscopic videos (n = 71) of postoperative CD patients (n = 66) retrieved from 9 Dutch centers. Each video was assessed for degree of inflammation by 4 gastroenterologists using the mRS and the new proposed endoscopic score: the REMIND score (separate score of anastomosis and neoterminal ileum) and the updated Rutgeerts score (assessment of lesions at the anastomotic line, ileal inlet, ileal body, and neoterminal ileum). In addition, lesions at the ileal body, ileal inlet, neoterminal ileum, and colonic and/or ileal blind loop were separately assessed. Interobserver agreement was assessed by using Fleiss' weighted kappa. RESULTS: Fleiss' weighted kappa for the mRS was .67 (95% confidence interval [CI], .59-.74). The weighted kappa for the REMIND score was .73 (95% CI, .65-.80) for lesions in the neoterminal ileum and .46 (95% CI, .35-.58) for anastomotic lesions. The weighted kappa for the updated Rutgeerts score was .69 (95% CI, .62-.77). The weighted kappa for lesions in the ileal body, ileal inlet, neoterminal ileum, and colonic and ileal blind loop was .61 (95% CI, .49-.73), .63 (95% CI, .54-.72), .61 (95% CI, .49-.74), .83 (95% CI, .62-1.00) and .68 (95% CI, .46-.89), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The interobserver agreement of the mRS is substantial. Similarly, the interobserver agreement is substantial for the updated Rutgeerts score. According to the REMIND score, the interobserver agreement was substantial for lesions in the neoterminal ileum, although only moderate for anastomotic lesions. Because therapeutic decisions in clinical practice are based on these assessments, and these scores are used as outcome measure in clinical studies, further improvement of the interobserver agreement is essential.
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".