The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A reproducible grading scale for histological assessment of inflammation in ulcerative colitis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of histological activity in ulcerative colitis needs to be reproducible but has rarely been tested. This could be useful both clinically and in clinical trials. AIM: To develop reproducible criteria which are valid in the assessment of acute inflammation (activity) and chronicity, and to evaluate these features in an interobserver variability study. METHODS: A six grade classification system for inflammation was developed which could also be fine tuned within each grade. The grades were: 0, structural change only; 1, chronic inflammation; 2, lamina propria neutrophils; 3, neutrophils in epithelium; 4, crypt destruction; and 5, erosions or ulcers. Ninety nine haematoxylin-eosin sections from endoscopically inflamed and non-inflamed mucosa from patients with distal ulcerative colitis were assessed in two separate readings by three pathologists independently and without knowledge of the clinical status. Interobserver agreement was compared pairwise using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Initially, kappa values between the observers were 0.20, 0.42, and 0.26, which are too low to be of value. Following development of a semiquantitative pictorial scale for each criterion, kappa values improved to 0.62, 0.70, and 0.59. For activity defined by neutrophils between epithelial cells, kappa values were 0.903, 1.000, and 0.907. Complete agreement was reached in 64% of samples of endoscopically normal and in 66% of endoscopically inflamed tissue. Neutrophils in epithelium correlated with the presence of crypt destruction and ulceration. CONCLUSION: A histological activity system was developed for ulcerative colitis that showed good reproducibility and modest agreement with the endoscopic grading system which it complemented. It has potential value both clinically and in clinical trials.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Magro, F., Gionchetti, P., Eliakim, R., Ardizzone, S., Armuzzi, A., Barreiro-de Acosta, M., Burisch, J., Gecse, K. B., Hart, A. L., Hindryckx, P., et al. (2017) · Journal of Crohn's and Colitis · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx008 · Cited by 1,910
Le Berre, C., Honap, S., & Peyrin-Biroulet, L. (2023) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00966-2 · Cited by 1,643
D’Haens, G., Sandborn, W. J., Feagan, B. G., Geboes, K., Hanauer, S. B., Irvine, E. J., Lémann, M., Marteau, P., Rutgeerts, P., Schölmerich, J., et al. (2007) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2006.12.038 · Cited by 1,207
Self-citationTravis, S. P. L., Schnell, D., Krzeski, P., Abreu, M. T., Altman, D. G., Colombel, J.-F., Feagan, B. G., Hanauer, S. B., Lémann, M., Lichtenstein, G. R., et al. (2012) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300486 · Cited by 632
Li, Y., de Haar, C., Chen, M., Deuring, J., Gerrits, M. M., Smits, R., Xia, B., Kuipers, E. J., & van der Woude, C. J. (2010) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2009.184176 · Cited by 339
Metadata
- Authors
- Geboes, K.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-09-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 404-409
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2116318925
- Cited by
- 943
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A reproducible grading scale for histological assessment of inflammation in ulcerative colitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.47.3.404
- The paper
- Geboes, K. (2000). A reproducible grading scale for histological assessment of inflammation in ulcerative colitis. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.47.3.404
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.