MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406462123 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2024-333446

Surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease: white light endoscopy with segmental re-inspection versus dye-based chromoendoscopy – a multi-arm randomised controlled trial (HELIOS)

2025· article· en· W4406462123 on OpenAlexaff
Maarten te Groen, Anouk M. Wijnands, Nathan den Broeder, Dirk J. de Jong, Willemijn A. van Dop, Marjolijn Duijvestein, Herma H. Fidder, Fiona van Schaik, Meike M. Hirdes, Andrea E. van der Meulen‐de Jong, Jeroen Maljaars, Philip W. Voorneveld, Kimberly R. Boer, Charlotte P. Peters, Bas Oldenburg, Frank Hoentjen

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersTeva Pharmaceutical Industries
KeywordsChromoendoscopyInflammatory bowel diseaseMedicineEndoscopyWhite lightRandomized controlled trialColonoscopyRadiologySurgeryColorectal cancerGastroenterologyInternal medicineDiseaseCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear if the increased colorectal neoplasia detection rate in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) by high-definition (HD) dye-based chromoendoscopy compared with HD white-light endoscopy is due to enhanced contrast or increased inspection times. Longer withdrawal times may yield similar neoplasia detection rates as found by HD chromoendoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To compare colorectal neoplasia detection rates for HD white-light endoscopy with segmental re-inspection and HD chromoendoscopy, using single-pass HD white-light endoscopy as an additional control group. DESIGN: In a multicentre, randomised controlled trial, IBD patients aged ≥18 years without active disease and scheduled for endoscopic surveillance were included. Patients were 2:2:1 randomised to HD white-light endoscopy with segmental re-inspection of each colonic segment (double pass), HD chromoendoscopy or single-pass HD white-light endoscopy. The primary outcome was colorectal neoplasia detection rate. Assuming equal colorectal neoplasia rates (non-inferiority margin of 10%) between segmental re-inspection and chromoendoscopy and superiority of segmental re-inspection vs single-pass HD white-light endoscopy, a sample size of 566 patients was required. RESULTS: In total, 563 patients were analysed per-protocol. Colorectal neoplasia detection rates were 10.3% (n=24/234) for HD white-light endoscopy with segmental re-inspection and 13.1% (n=28/214) for HD chromoendoscopy. This confirmed non-inferiority to HD chromoendoscopy (Δ-2.8%, lower limit 95% CI -7.8, p<0.01). In addition, the number of detected colorectal neoplasia per 10 min of withdrawal time was similar between HD white-light endoscopy with segmental re-inspection and HD chromoendoscopy (0.062 vs 0.058, p=0.83). Single-pass HD white-light endoscopy yielded a lower colorectal neoplasia rate (6.1%; n=7/115) than segmental re-inspection but this was not statistically significant (Δ4.1%, 95% CI -2.2:9.6%, p=0.19). CONCLUSIONS: HD white-light endoscopy with segmental re-inspection was non-inferior to HD chromoendoscopy for colorectal neoplasia detection in IBD patients. It can therefore be assumed that the benefit of HD chromoendoscopy may be explained by the longer withdrawal time and not necessarily the enhanced contrast. However, re-inspection per se did not lead to a significantly higher colorectal neoplasia rate than single-pass HD white-light endoscopy alone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGutSame topicInflammatory Bowel DiseaseFrench-language works237,207