Consensus report of the 2nd International Conference on Double Balloon Endoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In the past 6 years new techniques have expanded the endoscopic evaluation of the small bowel up to total enteroscopy. In 2001, video capsule endoscopy (VCE) was approved by the FDA for the evaluation of small-bowel diseases. VCE can provide an endoscopic view of most of the small intestinal mucosa, but the diagnosis depends on the analysis of recorded images, and neither biopsy nor endoscopic treatment can be performed. The latter has become possible with double balloon endoscopy (DBE), which was first described by Yamamoto and colleagues in 2001 [ 1 ] and enables complete enteroscopy to be carried out. Additional applications of potential clinical use include difficult colonoscopies and access to the pancreatic and biliary tract in patients with altered postoperative anatomy. Within a short time period several feasibility studies, including data on diagnostic and therapeutic yield of DBE, have been published. Here we report the consensus on the current status of DBE that was developed during the 2nd International Conference on DBE in Berlin, 14 - 15 June 2007, which was sponsored by Fujinon. The paper does not fulfill the formal criteria for a consensus, but may be regarded as a guide to the clinical application of DBE techniques based on published evidence, as well as on the personal opinions and experiences of the participants. Moreover, it also shows that many clinically relevant questions need to be addressed by further studies. The new development of single balloon enteroscopy has not been included in the conference, as only preliminary data existed in abstract form (DDW 2007), reporting about feasibility and comparative data between both techniques are missing.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".