MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005389405 · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1244121

Endoscopic mucosal resection using a grasp-and-snare technique

2010· article· en· W2005389405 on OpenAlex
Daniel von Renteln, A Schmidt, Melina C. Vassiliou, Hans-Ulrich Rudolph, K Caca

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic mucosal resectionGRASPResectionEndoscopySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a minimally invasive method for en bloc removal of superficial gastrointestinal lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a novel grasp-and-snare EMR technique. METHODS: In 10 domestic pigs, gastric lesions of approximately 3 cm were marked using electrocautery. EMR was performed using a double-channel endoscope. A novel tissue anchor was used through one channel, and a monofilament snare through the other. After submucosal injection, a circumferential mucosal incision was created. The tissue-anchoring device was then advanced through the open snare and anchored into the submucosal layer. The tissue-anchoring device was partly retracted into the endoscope and the snare was positioned into the circular incision. The snare was subsequently closed and the specimen resected by applying high-frequency electrocautery. RESULTS: Mean time to perform EMR was 32.4 minutes (range 22-41 minutes, SD 6.3). EMR yielded specimens that ranged in area from 2.7 cm (minor axis) by 2.8 cm (major axis) to 4.0 cm by 4.2 cm (mean area 9.36 cm(2); range 5.94-13.19 cm(2); SD +/- 2.50). Complete en bloc resection including all electrocautery markings was achieved in 9/10 cases. In one case, resection was achieved in two steps. One gastric wall perforation occurred. No other adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Grasp-and-snare EMR is feasible in an animal model. The technique can be performed efficiently compared with standard methods. To avoid perforation, caution is needed to ensure that tissue anchor needles are placed within and not deeper than the submucosal layer prior to tissue retraction.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.292 · 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