Prospective Study of the Quality of Colonoscopies Performed by Primary Care Physicians: The Alberta Primary Care Endoscopy (APC-Endo) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The quality of colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians (PCPs) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether PCP colonoscopists achieve colonoscopy quality benchmarks, and patient satisfaction with having their colonoscopy performed by a primary care physician. DESIGN: Prospective multi-center, multi-physician observational study. Colonoscopic quality data collection occurred via completion of case report forms and pathological confirmation of lesions. Patient satisfaction was captured by a telephone survey. SETTING: Thirteen rural and suburban hospitals in Alberta, Canada. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of successful cecal intubations, average number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, proportion of patients with at least one adenoma, and serious adverse event rates; patient satisfaction with their wait time and procedure, as well as willingness to have a repeat colonoscopy performed by their primary care endoscopist. RESULTS: In the two-month study period, 10 study physicians performed 577 colonoscopies. The overall adjusted proportion of successful cecal intubations was 96.5% (95% CI 94.6-97.8), and all physicians achieved the adjusted cecal intubation target of ≥90%. The average number of ademonas detected per colonoscopy was 0.62 (95% CI 0.5-0.74). 46.4% (95% CI 38.5-54.3) of males and 30.2% (95% CI 22.3-38.2) of females ≥50 years of age having their first colonoscopy, had at least one adenoma. Four serious adverse events occurred (three post polypectomy bleeds and one perforation) and 99.3% of patients were willing to have a repeat colonoscopy performed by their primary care colonoscopist. LIMITATIONS: Two-month study length and non-universal participation by Alberta primary care endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physician colonoscopists can achieve quality benchmarks in colonoscopy. Training additional primary care physicians in endoscopy may improve patient access and decrease endoscopic wait times, especially in rural settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".