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 OpenAlexafffundabout
Tarun Misra, Eoin Lalor, Richard N. Fedorak

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations63
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology and HepatologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207