K. and B.R.Y.) from a resource of videos

from clinical trials of patients with active UC.8 Subjects had consented to the anonymized presentation of these procedures (EUDRACT 2006-001310-32). Each video comprised a full-length sigmoidoscopy, edited to remove contact friability test images where present, because this technical test had confused earlier assessment. Also included were recordings from subjects (Oxford LREC 536407Q1605/58ORH) without UC during colorectal cancer screening (“normal”) and from patients with the most severe UC who had been hospitalized, some before Selleckchem GSK2118436 emergency colectomy. All videos were anonymized throughout the study. A library of 57 videos was created and stratified by clinical disease activity using the Mayo Clinic score. Fifty of the videos were new (ie, not previously assessed in phases 1 or 2). Another 7 were MDV3100 ic50 repeated as benchmarks, comprising one each from extreme strata (ie, normal or most severe) and 5 with Mayo Clinic scores between 1 and 11. Each investigator was randomly assigned 28 of 57 videos in randomized order using a set of Latin squares (Table 2). Twenty-six of the 28 videos did not include clinical details. Each investigator was asked to evaluate the most severely affected area. Two duplicates of new videos (Mayo Clinic strata 1–2, 6–7, or 10–11)

were provided to evaluate intrainvestigator agreement. Another 2 videos were repeated and supplemented with clinical details (number of stools/day, severity of rectal bleeding, pretreatment or posttreatment status, and physician’s global assessment)

to evaluate prior knowledge of such clinical details on endoscopic evaluation. Videos were supplied in 3 batches over a 6-week period both to avoid reader fatigue and to optimize memory extinction for duplicated videos. Duplicates were arranged so that the first of any pair was in the first batch and the second was in the third batch. Abiraterone concentration Investigators were asked to evaluate the 3 descriptors comprising the UCEIS (Table 1) in the area worst affected at video sigmoidoscopy. In contrast to phase 2,6 still photographs from the training were provided for reference during evaluation to facilitate reference to the rating standards. A VAS (0–100) rating overall severity was similar to that used for phase 2. The VAS was used as a reference in the absence of a gold standard endoscopic assessment for reasons previously explained.6 To enable consistent and convenient data entry, investigators were provided with a data capture program designed by one of the authors (P.S.) that could be run simultaneously with video viewing and save responses after each video was scored. Data files were e-mailed to the sponsor after qualification assessments and for each cohort. The UCEIS was calculated as the simple sum of vascular pattern (scored 0–2), bleeding (scored 0 to 3), and erosions and ulcers (scored 0–3). Thus, the range of possible UCEIS scores was from 0 to 8.