MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1951817412 · doi:10.1155/2004/505970

Endoscopic Perforation Rates at a Canadian University Teaching Hospital

2004· article· en· W1951817412 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCrohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyPerforationIncidence (geometry)EndoscopySurgeryGeneral surgeryColorectal cancerInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in training, operative techniques and endoscopic technology, upper and lower endoscopic procedures continue to have potential for intestinal perforation. Perforation rates provided to patients at the time of consent have frequently been derived from historical cohorts and survey datasets. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the perforation rates of upper and lower endoscopic procedures at a major Canadian tertiary care centre. METHODS: Inpatient and outpatient gastroscopies and colonoscopies performed during a three year period were evaluated. Endoscopies with perforations occurring within 14 days of procedure were retrospectively isolated using the International Classification of Diseases - 9th Revision code descriptions, then retrieved and hand searched to confirm a procedure-related perforation. Data were extracted to identify risk factors and patient outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 21,217 endoscopies (13,792 gastroscopies and 7425 colonoscopies) were reviewed. Of these, 359 were identified, isolated and hand searched for confirmation of a perforation event. Eighteen were found to have an endoscopy-associated perforation. Ten perforations occurred with colonoscopy (0.13%) (incidence, 1.3/1000 procedures), resulting in one death (0.013%) (incidence, 0.13/1000 procedures). Eight perforations occurred with gastroscopy (0.06%) (incidence, 0.6/1000 procedures), resulting in zero mortality. Of colonoscopy procedures the rate of perforation with diagnostic colonoscopy was 0.13% (incidence, 1.3/1000 procedures) and with therapeutic colonoscopy was 0.14% (incidence, 1.4/1000 procedures). Of gastroscopy procedures the rate with therapeutic gastroscopy was 0.15% (incidence, 1.5/1000 procedures). No perforations occurred with diagnostic gastroscopy. CONCLUSION: Gastroscopy and colonoscopy procedures, especially those with therapeutic maneuvers, continue to carry morbidity and mortality risks associated with perforation.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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