MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W165412952

Upper GI Endoscopy

2003· article· en· W165412952 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian veterinary journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuodenoscopyEndoscopeDuodenumPylorusMedicineEndoscopySphincterGeneral surgerySurgeryComputer scienceStomachInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CD is divided into several sections: Esophagoscopy, Gastroscopy, Duodenoscopy, and Biopsy/Brush Cytology. In addition, 3 Clinical Cases are presented in which it is demonstrated how endoscopy was helpful in reaching a diagnosis. The setup of the presentation is logical and each section can be studied on its own. A minor disadvantage of this approach is that if modules are taken one after the other, a lot of repeat information is shown, which can become tedious. The ability to maneuver around the learning module is good. Several direct paths leading to the desired segment of the module can be selected. The description of the actual endoscope movements is adequate. Within the program, regular reference is made to another CD ROM from Lifelearn, namely Introduction to Flexible Endoscopy where more instruction on handling and setup of the endoscope is provided. The description for the technique of performing an endoscopic examination is adequate but, at times, awkward. For example, the advice to complete a total gastroscopy prior to advancement into the duodenum is, in my opinion, ill advised; it will result in an increased chance of closure of the pylorus in response to the gastric distention and stimulation. Subsequent passage into the duodenum past the pyloric sphincter will become much more difficult compared with completing the gastroscopy once the duodenoscopy has been completed. In my opinion, to see an open pyloric sphincter during scoping (which stays open as happens in the video demonstration) is rare, a closed pyloric sphincter is much more common. The latter can be a real challenge to pass through with the endoscope, a subject not discussed in the program. Some findings and interpretations of the clinical cases are open for discussion. For example, the finding of thickened bowel loops on abdominal palpation has, in clinical practice, been fraught with errors. In my opinion, only abdominal ultrasonography can be used as a noninvasive reliable, reproducible method of determining intestinal wall thickness. In another case, a dog with chronic vomiting, the use of H2 blocker therapy was rejected, despite the likely presence of mild esophagitis. On the other hand, the recommended use of sucralfate suspension in a patient with esophagitis is probably of little value. As always, it is advisable to check drug choices and dosages in standard reference text books prior to commencement of therapy. In summary: Upper GI Endoscopy provides an attractive interactive way of demonstrating endoscopy to practitioners. The CD ROM's main function will be to complement wet labs and standard endoscopy texts.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.246 · 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