MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972443519 · doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.55

BOB CAT: a Large-Scale Review and Delphi Consensus for Management of Barrett’s Esophagus With No Dysplasia, Indefinite for, or Low-Grade Dysplasia

2015· review· en· W1972443519 on OpenAlexaff
Cathy Bennett, Paul Moayyedi, Douglas A. Corley, John de Caestecker, Yngve Falck–Ytter, Gary W. Falk, Nimish Vakil, S. Sanders, Michael Vieth, John M. Inadomi, David Aldulaimi, Khek Yu Ho, Robert D. Odze, Stephen J. Meltzer, Eamonn M.M. Quigley, Stuart Gittens, Peter J. Watson, Giovanni Zaninotto, Prasad G. Iyer, Leo Alexandre, Yeng Ang, J Callaghan, Rebecca Harrison, Rajvinder Singh, Pradeep Bhandari, Raf Bisschops, Bita Geramizadeh, Philip Kaye, Sheila Krishnadath, Brian Fennerty, Hendrik Manner, Katie S. Nason, Oliver Pech, Vani J. Konda, Krish Ragunath, Imdadur Rahman, Yvonne Romero, Richard E. Sampliner, Peter D. Siersema, Jan Tack, Tony Tham, Nigel Trudgill, David S. Weinberg, Jean Wang, Kenneth T. Wang, Jennie Wong, Stephen Attwood, Peter Malfertheiner, David MacDonald, Hugh Barr, Mark K. Ferguson, Janusz Jankowski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of LeedsNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence
KeywordsMedicineDysplasiaGrading (engineering)Delphi methodBarrett's esophagusPopulationEndoscopic mucosal resectionGeneral surgeryEsophagusInternal medicineFamily medicineCancerEndoscopyAdenocarcinomaEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a common premalignant lesion for which surveillance is recommended. This strategy is limited by considerable variations in clinical practice. We conducted an international, multidisciplinary, systematic search and evidence-based review of BE and provided consensus recommendations for clinical use in patients with nondysplastic, indefinite, and low-grade dysplasia (LGD). METHODS: We defined the scope, proposed statements, and searched electronic databases, yielding 20,558 publications that were screened, selected online, and formed the evidence base. We used a Delphi consensus process, with an 80% agreement threshold, using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to categorize the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. RESULTS: In total, 80% of respondents agreed with 55 of 127 statements in the final voting rounds. Population endoscopic screening is not recommended and screening should target only very high-risk cases of males aged over 60 years with chronic uncontrolled reflux. A new international definition of BE was agreed upon. For any degree of dysplasia, at least two specialist gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists are required. Risk factors for cancer include male gender, length of BE, and central obesity. Endoscopic resection should be used for visible, nodular areas. Surveillance is not recommended for <5 years of life expectancy. Management strategies for indefinite dysplasia (IND) and LGD were identified, including a de-escalation strategy for lower-risk patients and escalation to intervention with follow-up for higher-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this uniquely large consensus process in gastroenterology, we made key clinical recommendations for the escalation/de-escalation of BE in clinical practice. We made strong recommendations for the prioritization of future research.

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)0.228
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.316
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2280.316
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.009
Bibliometrics0.0240.013
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations168
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207