A Survey of Canadian Gastroenterologists about the Management of Barrett’s Esophagus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of the present study were to determine practice patterns of Canadian gastroenterologists for screening patients with Barrett's esophagus and to compare current practice patterns with published guidelines. A secondary goal was to evaluate whether gastroenterologists recommend a "once in a lifetime" endoscopy for patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. A structured questionnaire regarding screening for Barrett's esophagus was sent to members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology. The overall response rate was 51% (203 of 396). Of the 203 respondents, 165 (81%) performed endoscopies in adults and form the basis of this report. The majority of Canadian gastroenterologists followed published guidelines, with 62% screening patients without dysplasia every two years. Patients with low grade dysplasia were screened more frequently, with 54% of respondents performing endoscopy every six months, and 35% on a yearly basis. Biopsy protocols showed the greatest variation, with 46% of gastroenterologists taking four-quadrant biopsies at 2 cm intervals along the columnar-lined (Barrett's) esophagus. Seventy-six per cent of gastroenterologists agreed that all patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux should have a "once in a lifetime" endoscopy to screen for Barrett's esophagus. The majority of Canadian gastroenterologists follow current guidelines for the management of Barrett's esophagus and support the concept of "once in a lifetime" endoscopy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".