Early Experience with Unsedated Ultrathin 4.9 mm Transnasal Gastroscopy: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unsedated transnasal gastroscopy is a technique with unverified clinical advantages. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and procedure times with transnasal gastroscopy by physicians with no previous experience in transnasal endoscopy. METHODS: Unsedated transnasal gastroscopy using 4.9 mm ultrathin transnasal gastroscopes with randomization to two different biopsy forceps was prospectively evaluated during a single day in January 2008. The outcomes included patient tolerance (scale: 1, no discomfort; 10, severe discomfort), physician technical assessment (1, excellent; 10, very poor), gastric biopsy quality, adverse events and procedure times. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent transnasal gastroscopy. Nineteen patients (95%) successfully completed transnasal gastroscopy. The patient-reported mean (+/- SD) overall discomfort level during the procedure was 4.0+/-1.9 compared with a physician-estimated level of 3.2+/-1.7 (P=0.04). Only 10% (n=2) reported they would have preferred sedated over unsedated gastroscopy. Mean total encounter time from anesthesia to discharge was 33.5+/-9.3 min. The time from anesthesia to insertion was 7.0+/-5.3 min and from room exit to discharge 6.2+/-2.9 min. No patients who had gastric biopsies taken (zero of 14) had any of unacceptable quality. The only adverse event was distressing sensations (dyspnea, dizziness) in one patient that started during pre-endoscopy anesthetic application, persisting postendoscopy, but without any abnormalities in vital signs. CONCLUSION: Assuming the adverse event was a rare reaction, early experience with unsedated ultrathin transnasal gastroscopy was an efficient, effective and well-tolerated procedure for evaluation of the upper gastrointestinal tract.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".