The Impact of Endoscopic Healing on Disease-Related Outcomes in Patients With Ulcerative Proctitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Ulcerative proctitis (UP) is a limited form of ulcerative colitis. While achieving endoscopic healing (EH) in ulcerative colitis improves long-term outcomes, the benefit of EH in UP is uncertain. This study aimed to assess the impact of EH on outcomes in UP. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study included adults with UP and ≥2 endoscopies, with active inflammation (Mayo endoscopic score [MES] 1-3) at index. EH was defined as MES 0-1 at follow-up procedure. The relationship of EH to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related outcomes was assessed using univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression assessed the effect of EH on IBD-related outcomes. RESULTS: Among 200 UP patients, 109 (54.5%) had EH at follow-up endoscopy at median 19 months (interquartile range: 7, 32). EH was associated with fewer IBD-related emergency department (ED) visits (EH: 8.3%, no EH: 21%, P = .01), hospitalizations (5.5% vs 18%), and GI visits (mean: 1.47/year [SD: 1.40], vs 2.96/year [2.52], P < .001). Patients with EH were less likely to have iron deficiency anemia (23% vs 41%, P = .007), Clostridioides difficile (0.9% vs 6.6%, P = .048), or initiate new biologic therapy after relapse (15% vs 33%, P = .034). Patients with EH had a greater time to clinical relapse (21 [24] vs 9 months [14]; P = .006) and lower odds of an IBD-related ED visit (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.73) or hospitalization (0.26 [0.09, 0.67]). Baseline presence of a cecal patch did not impact outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: UP patients with EH had less IBD-related healthcare utilization, fewer IBD-related complications, and were less likely to escalate therapy after relapse than patients without EH. Using a treatment target of EH may therefore be desirable in UP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".