Tissue Eosinophil Counts as Predictors of Infliximab Response in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Retrospective Nested Case Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Infliximab is an effective therapy for pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but a substantial proportion of patients experience primary non-response or relapse. Tissue eosinophilia has been implicated in treatment resistance, yet its predictive value in pediatric populations remains unclear. Methods We conducted a retrospective nested case-control study including 80 pediatric IBD patients treated with infliximab at CHU Sainte-Justine between 2014 and 2023 Relapse cases (n = 42) were defined by an increase in the short Pediatric Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (sPCDAI) ≥10, and compared with non-relapse controls (n = 38). Tissue eosinophil counts were quantified from diagnostic biopsies by blinded reviewers. Primary non-response was defined as a lack of clinical improvement before treatment change. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed to assess associations between eosinophil counts and treatment outcomes. Results 80 patients were included in the study. Median age at diagnosis was 14.4 years (interquarile range [IQR] 3.65). Forty patients had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (UC, 50%) and the other half had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease (CD). Baseline eosinophil counts were not associated with subsequent relapse (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.98-1.06, p = 0.31), and ROC analysis demonstrated poor discrimination (AUC 0.57). In contrast, higher eosinophil counts were associated with primary non-response in ulcerative colitis patients (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16, p = 0.03). A cutoff of a median of ≥ 36 eosinophils per high-power field among all segments yielded 85% sensitivity and 80% specificity for predicting primary non-response (AUC 0.82). Conclusion Tissue eosinophil counts do not predict relapse in pediatric IBD patients treated with infliximab. However, elevated counts may identify ulcerative colitis patients at risk of primary non-response, suggesting a role for histological stratification in guiding the selection of biologics. Prospective validation in larger cohorts is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".