Systematic review on definitions of intestinal ultrasound treatment response and remission in inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is emerging as a valuable tool to assess treatment response in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinical trials. This study details how IUS defines response and remission to evaluate treatment efficacy in IBD patients. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of studies from 1984 to March 31, 2024, focusing on IUS use in assessing treatment efficacy in IBD. RESULTS: A total of 51 studies were included: 31 on Crohn's disease (CD), 12 on ulcerative colitis (UC) and 8 on IBD. Ileocolonoscopy was used as a reference standard in 53% of studies. IUS-defined response was reported in 47% of studies, with the majority (71%) using changes in bowel wall thickness (BWT) and color Doppler signals (CDS) as key indicators. IUS-defined remission was reported in 53% of studies, primarily using normalization of BWT to <3 mm and CDS to grades 0 or 1 as criteria. Ultrasonographic activity scores were used in 16% of studies, including the Bowel Ultrasound Score (BUSS) in two CD studies, the International Bowel Ultrasound Segmental Activity Score (IBUS-SAS) in one CD study, and the Milan Ultrasound Criteria (MUC) in one UC study The remaining four studies used unvalidated scores without clear definitions of response or remission. Assessment times varied, most commonly at weeks 8-16, and at 6, 12, and 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review reveals significant variability in IUS definitions of response and remission in IBD, highlighting the need to standardize eligibility criteria and outcome measures for IUS in IBD clinical trials.
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 | 0.016 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".