You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Scoring endoscopic disease activity in IBD: artificial intelligence sees more and better than we do
  1. Peter Bossuyt1,2,
  2. Séverine Vermeire1,
  3. Raf Bisschops1
  1. 1 Department of Gastroenterolgy and Hepatology, Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  2. 2 Departement of Gastroenterology, Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium
  1. Correspondence to Dr Peter Bossuyt, Department of Gastroenterolgy and Hepatology, Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; peter.bossuyt{at}imelda.be

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318235

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    With great interest we read the review article of Iacucci et al on advanced endoscopic techniques in IBD.1 The authors clearly recognise the current limitations of the different endoscopic scoring tools for disease activity in IBD and provide potential solutions with new advanced techniques. We fully agree that interobserver variability is problematic for treatment planning and IBD drug development and we lack objective definitions of endoscopic remission that predict further disease course in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC). Scoring systems were mostly developed at the end of the previous century, based on evaluations with fiberoptic endoscopes or poor quality white light video-endoscopes. Intrinsically, it could be anticipated that by seeing more details and nuances such as with virtual chromo-endoscopy, this could result in a superior assessment of the disease activity in IBD. …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors PB: wrote the manuscript and did the literature review. SV: critically reviewed the manuscript. RB: critically reviewed the manuscript and supervised the study.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. The author name has been corrected from Lacucci to Iacucci in the content and in the references.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.