MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-compliance does not impair qualitative evaluation of colonic transit time

2010· article· en· W1526675694 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Bouchoucha, J. Prado, L. Chtourou, Ghislain Devroede, C. Atanassiu, Robert Benamouzig

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurogastroenterology & Motility · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransit timeCompliance (psychology)Transit (satellite)MedicinePsychologyInternal medicineTransport engineeringSocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Measurement of colonic transit time (CTT) by using radiopaque markers with the "Multiple ingestion-Single film" technique is a simple, reproducible technique to measure total and segmental CTT. However, it requires good compliance of the patients, who must ingest the capsules containing radio-opaque markers for 6 consecutive days. The purpose of this study was to estimate the error in CTT measurement if they fail to do this. METHODS: The protocol tested was to ingest 12 markers per day during 6 days and take a plain film of the abdomen on day 7. The study was done by simulation using a 3-compartiment model (right colon, left colon, rectosigmoid area). There was a set of 67,525 possibilities with possible single or double failure of markers ingestion for 6 days either 238,266 combinations for one omission, or 312,375 combinations for two omissions; the absence of omission was the reference. The analysis focused on two complementary aspects of the evaluation of omission: quantitatively, the absolute and relative error on the CTT measured and qualitatively, the diagnostic error (a delayed transit is defined by a total CTT > 65 hours). KEY RESULTS: Total and segmental CTT measured when omission occurred were greater than the reference time. The difference is particularly important, when omission occurs early during the study for all segments. Qualitative analysis showed that, for one omission of markers ingestion, a correct diagnosis of delayed colonic transit time and of the main site of delay could be obtained by the 3-compartment model in 100% of cases. For two failures of markers ingestion, "delayed" colonic transit could be regarded as normal in only 9.59% of cases; furthermore, the site of delay was correctly recognized in 83% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Despite omission of markers ingestion for one or two days, measured CTT overestimates the absolute value of colonic transit time, the formulated diagnosis (delayed transit and site of delay) is perfectly acceptable clinically.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurogastroenterology & MotilitySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207