Percutaneous Liver Biopsy Practice Patterns Among Canadian Hepatologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB) is the standard procedure to obtain histological samples essential for the management of various liver diseases. While safe, many hepatologists no longer perform their own PLBs; the reasons for this practice shift are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To describe the attitudes, practice patterns and barriers to PLB among hepatologists in Canada. METHODS: A survey was distributed to all hepatologists in Canada. RESULTS: Thirty-two of 40 (80%) hepatologists completed the survey; the majority of respondents were male (72%) and had been in practice for >5 years in an academic setting. Fifty-six per cent of hepatologists referred all PLBs to radiology, and only 19% of hepatologists reported performing their own PLBs most or all of the time. There were no sex differences nor were there differences based on years in practice. Fifty per cent of respondents who performed PLB routinely used ultrasound, and PLBs are performed in equal frequency in an ambulatory procedure area (50%) versus the endoscopy suite (36%). For almost one-half of hepatologists (47%), their performance of PLBs decreased in the past five years. The majority of respondents at an academic centre (75%) reported access to FibroScan (Echosens, France), and most estimated a resultant 25% to 50% reduction in the need for PLBs. Lack of resources, patient preference and suboptimal reimbursement were the most common reasons cited for not performing PLBs. CONCLUSION: Most hepatologists in Canada do not perform PLBs to the extent that they did in the past, but refer to radiology. The reasons for this shift in practice include lack of resources, improved perception of safety and patient preference. Where available, FibroScan resulted in a perceived 25% to 50% reduction in required liver biopsies.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".