Literature review and recommendations for clinical application of small-bowel capsule endoscopy, based on a panel discussion by international experts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Corrected by: Literature review and recommendations for clinical application of small-bowel capsule endoscopy, based on a panel discussion by international experts Endoscopy 2007; 39(12): 1105-1106 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-995377 Background and methods This review is based on two meetings sponsored by Given Imaging as part of their annual International Conference on Capsule Endoscopy (ICCE), a meeting which was held in two parts, one in Miami in March 2006 and the second in Paris in June 2006. In order to arrive at a consensus on small-bowel endoscopy indications, results, and outcome data, between five and seven experts, selected by chairmen for each of the subtopics, were asked to review and modify consensus statements in six different areas: intestinal preparations and prokinetics (both considered by a single group), obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, small-bowel tumors, inflammatory bowel disease, and celiac disease. In each of the five groups, two people prepared key questions and answers to relevant questions in their area, as well as preparing literature that was sent in advance to the other participants. These issues were then discussed within the groups and the final statements were drafted. The manuscript based on these statements was then sent to the group members for comments and modifications. Necessarily, only one aspect of performance, such as preparatory measures, was considered, and others (especially complications and risks) were not dealt with in this meeting. For the evidence cited in this publication as a basis for group decision making, only original articles in peer-reviewed journals and, if deemed appropriate, abstracts from the two major gastroenterology congresses (Digestive Diseases Week [DDW], United European Gastroenterology Week [UEGW]) of the last two years were used. Evidence from important original research published up till summer 2007 was added during manuscript preparation, even after the meeting, to keep the consensus up to date especially when additional evidence was considered practically relevant. A general methodological problem in studies on capsule endoscopy is the absence of a reliable gold standard; terms used in clinical research for many years, such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values etc., have therefore been replaced by the surrogate parameter ”yield,“ with evident inherent limitations. With the advent of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE), it may be possible to provide a more reliable gold standard, but systematic data are lacking, since case series on DBE use a similar methodology and the entire small bowel is examined in only a small minority of cases included in these studies.
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 | 0,016 | 0,043 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,013 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,015 |
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 ».