Defining mucosal healing in randomized controlled trials of inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and future perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mucosal healing (MH) is an established treatment goal in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, various definitions of MH exist. We aimed to identify how MH is defined in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library from inception to December 2023 for phase 2 and 3 RCTs of advanced therapies in IBD. RESULTS: One hundred forty-four studies were included, 72 in UC and 72 in CD, published between 1997 and 2023. In UC, 64% (46/72) RCTs reported MH as an endpoint. 12 definitions of MH were found, from endoscopic assessment alone (35/46; 76%) to the more recent combination of histology and endoscopy (10/46; 22%). 96% (44/46) of studies used the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore. In CD, reporting of MH lagged behind UC, with only 12% (9/72) of trials specifically defining MH as an endpoint, 7 as "absence of ulceration," 2 as Simplified Endoscopic Score for CD score ≤2 or 0. Histological assessment was performed in 3 RCTs of CD. Centralized reading of endoscopy was used in 48% (35/72) of RCTs of UC and 22% (16/72) of CD. Only 1 RCT included transmural healing as an endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: A standard definition of MH in IBD is lacking. Definitions have evolved particularly in UC, which now includes the addition of histological evaluation. Transmural healing holds promise as a future target in CD. We support a greater standardization of definitions as we expect endpoints to become increasingly stringent and multimodal with computers automating the assessment.
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 | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".