A135 ASSESSING THE HISTOLOGICAL QUALITY OF ENDOSCOPIC BIOPSY SAMPLES OBTAINED USING NOVEL MULTIBITE FORCEPS FROM A PORCINE GASTRIC SPECIMEN
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Tissue sampling is often limited to acquisition of one to two biopsy samples during a single pass. The ability to obtain more than two biopsies during a single pass can improve diagnostic yield however is potentially limited by poor specimen quality and loss of specimens. The multibite forceps used in this study have a unique geometry with the ability to store up to six biopsy samples taken consecutively with easy removal of the samples when shaken in solution. If multiple biopsies can be taken during a single pass with preserved specimen quality then we can reduce procedure time, improve efficiency and sensitivity of biopsies. Aims To evaluate the histological quality of the first biopsy sample compared to the last (sixth) biopsy sample acquired consecutively with the multibite forcep during a single act. Methods A porcine stomach was coloured with surgical dye to create six separate segments. An experienced endoscopist used single use disposable MultiCROC multi-sampling biopsy forceps to acquire six consecutive biopsies. Biopsies were manually separated into the order of which they were acquired (biopsy one through six) and each sample was placed in formalin solution. A total of 35 sets of 6 biopsies were obtained producing a total of 210 samples. Samples were randomized and two independent pathologists who were blinded to the biopsy order assessed the histological quality of specimens. Specimens were evaluated for presence of full thickness mucosa, absence of fragmentation, crush artifact and diagnostic utility. Each pathologist then scored each specimen and the mean scores were used to compare the histological quality of the first biopsy vs. the sixth biopsy for each set. Results Our preliminary results include 12 of the 35 sets of biopsies. Using a paired sample t test, there was no significant difference between the mean score given to biopsy one and biopsy six for all twelve pairs [3.62 (SD 1.46) vs. 3.67 (SD 1.15), correlation factor=0.498 and p=.10). There was no significant difference between the first and sixth biopsy when comparing the presence of full thickness mucosa [0.59 (SD 0.49) vs. 0.59 (SD 0.44), p=.086], absence of fragmentation [0.50 (SD 0.50) vs. 0.73 (SD 0.34), p=0.06], absence of crush artifact [0.96 (SD 0.15) vs. 0.91 (SD 0.30), p=0.77), and specimen size [1.64 (SD 0.92) vs. 1.70 (SD 0.65), p=0.56). Conclusions No significant differences were found between the histological quality of the first biopsy and the sixth biopsy. Additional parameters such as specimen size, full thickness mucosa, absence of fragmentation and absence of crush artifact revealed no significant differences between the first and sixth biopsy. This preliminary data thus far shows that there is no difference between the histological quality when multiple biopsies are retrieved consecutively. Funding Agencies NoneNone
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».