MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974507693 · doi:10.3748/wjg.v16.i42.5329

Factors associated with incomplete small bowel capsule endoscopy studies

2010· article· en· W1974507693 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mitchell M Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastroenterology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCapsule endoscopyOdds ratioBowel obstructionRetrospective cohort studyConfidence intervalGastrointestinal bleedingLogistic regressionSurgeryInternal medicineAbdominal painGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To identify patient risk factors associated with incomplete small bowel capsule endoscopy (CE) studies. METHODS: Data from all CE procedures performed at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, between December 2001 and June 2008 were collected and analyzed on a retrospective basis. Data collection for complete and incomplete CE study groups included patient demographics as well as a number of potential risk factors for incomplete CE including indication for the procedure, hospitalization, diabetes mellitus with or without end organ damage, limitations in mobility, renal insufficiency, past history of bowel obstruction, abdominal surgery, abdominal radiation therapy and opiate use. Risk factors were analyzed using a univariable and multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: From a total of 535 CE procedures performed, 158 were incomplete (29.5%). The univariable analysis showed that CE procedures performed for overt gastrointestinal bleeding (P = 0.002), and for patients with a prior history of abdominal surgery (P = 0.023) or bowel obstruction (P = 0.023) were significantly associated with incomplete CE studies. Patients on opiate medications (P = 0.094) as well as hospitalized patients (P = 0.054) were not statistically significant, but did show a trend towards incomplete CE. The multivariable analysis showed that independent risk factors for an incomplete CE procedure include prior history of bowel obstruction [odds ratios (OR) 2.77, P = 0.02, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.17-6.56] and procedures performed for gastrointestinal bleeding (Occult OR 2.04, P = 0.037, 95% CI: 1.04-4.02 and Overt OR 2.69, P = 0.002, 95% CI: 1.44-5.05). Patients with a prior history of abdominal surgery (OR 1.46, P = 0.068, 95% CI: 0.97-2.19), those taking opiate medications (OR 1.54, P = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.86-2.76) and hospitalized patients (OR 1.82, P = 0.124, 95% CI: 0.85-3.93) showed a trend towards statistical significance. CONCLUSION: We have identified a number of risk factors for incomplete CE procedures that can be used to risk-stratify patients and guide interventions to improve completion rates.

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 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207