Practice and Documentation of Performance of Colonoscopy in a Central Canadian health Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting and performance of colonoscopy in a large urban centre. METHODS: Colonoscopies performed between January and April 2008 in community hospitals and academic centres in the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (Manitoba) were identified from hospital discharge databases and retrospective review of a random sample of identified charts. Information regarding reporting of colonoscopies (including bowel preparation, photodocumentation of cecum⁄ileum, size, site, characteristics and method of polyp removal), colonoscopy completion rates and follow-up recommendations was extracted. Colonoscopy completion rates were compared among different groups of physicians. RESULTS: A total of 797 colonoscopies were evaluated. Several deficiencies in reporting were identified. For example, bowel preparation quality was reported in only 20%, the agent used for bowel preparation was recorded in 50%, photodocumentation of colonoscopy completion in 6% and polyp appearance (ie, pedunculated or not) in 34%, and polyp size in 66%. Although the overall colonoscopy completion rate was 92%, there was a significant difference among physicians with varying medical specialty training and volume of procedures performed. Recommendations for follow-up procedures (barium enema, computed tomography colonography or repeat colonoscopy) were recorded for a minority of individuals with reported poor bowel preparation or incomplete colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The present study found many deficiencies in reporting of colonoscopy in typical, city-wide clinical practices. Colonoscopy completion rates varied among different physician specialties. There is an urgent need to adopt standardized colonoscopy reporting systems in everyday practice and to provide feedback to physicians regarding deficiencies so they can be rectified.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".