ArticleInflammatory bowel diseases2025
Accurate, Robust, and Scalable Machine Abstraction of Mayo Endoscopic Subscores From Colonoscopy Reports.
Article in Inflammatory bowel diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in inflammatory bowel disease: From current evidence, clinical translation, and the road to precision medicine.Chinese medical journal · 2026Review
- Optimising large language models for clinical information extraction: a benchmarking study in the context of ulcerative colitis research.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Real-world effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in TNF-exposed pediatric patients with ulcerative colitis.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) is an important quantitative measure of disease activity in ulcerative colitis. Colonoscopy reports in routine clinical care usually characterize ulcerative colitis disease activity using free text description, limiting their utility for clinical research and quality improvement. We sought to develop algorithms to classify colonoscopy reports according to their MES.
methodsWe annotated 500 colonoscopy reports from 2 health systems. We trained and evaluated 4 classes of algorithms. Our primary outcome was accuracy in identifying scorable reports (binary) and assigning an MES (ordinal). Secondary outcomes included learning efficiency, generalizability, and fairness.
resultsAutomated machine learning models achieved 98% and 97% accuracy on the binary and ordinal prediction tasks, outperforming other models. Binary models trained on the University of California, San Francisco data alone maintained accuracy (96%) on validation data from Zuckerberg San Francisco General. When using 80% of the training data, models remained accurate for the binary task (97% [n = 320]) but lost accuracy on the ordinal task (67% [n = 194]). We found no evidence of bias by gender (P = .65) or area deprivation index (P = .80).
conclusionsWe derived a highly accurate pair of models capable of classifying reports by their MES and recognizing when to abstain from prediction. Our models were generalizable on outside institution validation. There was no evidence of algorithmic bias. Our methods have the potential to enable retrospective studies of treatment effectiveness, prospective identification of patients meeting study criteria, and quality improvement efforts in inflammatory bowel diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.