A106 THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF COMPLEX COLONIC POLYPS: A POPULATION BASED STUDY OF THE SOUTHWEST ONTARIO COLONOSCOPY COHORT
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Complex polyps are well recognized amongst endoscopists, but its definition varies in the literature and from one endoscopist to another. Despite its clinical importance, the epidemiology of complex polyps is poorly understood. Aims To assess the epidemiology of complex polyps on a population level, and in FIT positive individuals. Methods The Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort is a prospective database consisting of all adult patients undergoing colonoscopy at 21 hospitals in Southwest Ontario. Data is collected through a mandatory quality assurance form completed by the endoscopist after each procedure. All outpatient adult colonoscopies for any indication were included. Incomplete colonoscopies, repeat procedures, and poor preparation colonoscopies were excluded. A manual review of the colonoscopy report was completed in cases where the description of the complex polyps was missing. The primary outcomes were the prevalence of complex polyps in the cohort, and in FIT positive patients. Secondary outcomes include endoscopic description of the complex polyp, rates of attempted and complete resection, and identification of possible associations between patient and endoscopist factors with complex polyp detection and removal. A multivariate logistic regression model was generated to assess for factors associated with complex polyp detection. Results From February 2019 to December 2020, 43389 colonoscopies were included, of which 1459 were for FIT positive patients. 2294 patients had a complex polyp, with a prevalence of 5.3% [95% CI 0.051–0.055], while the prevalence was 17.1% [95% CI 0.152–0.191] in the FIT positive cohort. Compared to average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy for colon cancer screening, the odds ratio (OR) of detecting a complex polyp in individuals with positive FIT was 4.12 [95% CI 3.42–4.98, p<0.0001]. Among complex polyps,1324 (57.7%) were described as large (>2cm) and 1290 (56%) described as sessile. Of 2294 patients with complex polyps,1992 (86.8%) [95% CI 0.855–0.882] underwent a removal attempt, with successful complete removal as determined by the endoscopist achieved in 1905 patients (95.6%) [95% CI 0.947–0.965]. Compared to gastroenterologists, general surgeons and internists were less likely to detect a complex polyp, OR 0.67 [95% CI 0.61–0.73, p <0.0001] and 0.36 [95% CI 0.20–0.67, p=0.0011] respectively. Trainee involvement was associated with higher rate of complex polyp detection, OR 1.20 [95% CI 1.07–1.35, p=0.0022]. Females were less likely to have a complex polyp compared to males, OR 0.71 [95% CI 0.65–0.77, p<0.0001]. Conclusions Complex polyps are more prevalent than previously reported in the literature, with a high prevalence among the FIT positive population compared to other indications of colonoscopy. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».