P0752 OUTCOMES OF UPPER AND LOWER GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPIES IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS: THE EXPERIENCE OF ONE TERTIARY CARE PEDIATRIC GASTROENTEROLOGY SERVICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Endoscopies have been performed in children since the 1970s and are considered the gold standard procedure for many diseases of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract (1). Here, we describe the clinical indications for endoscopy, the type of sedation used, the complications, and the endoscopic and histologic outcomes of upper and lower endoscopies in a population of children and adolescents. Methods: Retrospective review of all endoscopies performed from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 2000 at the St. Justine Hospital in Montreal, Quebec. Results: 577 upper and 299 lower endoscopies were performed during this period. The age range was 1 month to 22 years with median and mode ages of 9 and 1 years for upper and 11 and 15 years for lower endoscopies. Most procedures were done under conscious sedation; general anesthesia was used in 26% and 11% of upper and lower endoscopies respectively. Upper endoscopies were performed mainly for abdominal pain, nausea or regurgitation, and vomiting and lower endoscopies for abdominal pain, diarrhea, and rectal bleeding. Therapeutic interventions were done in 13% of upper and 6% of lower endoscopies. Minor adverse events (mild cutaneous &/or respiratory reactions to medications used for sedation, patient discomfort) occurred in 5% of upper and 8% of lower endoscopies. Moderate to severe adverse events (cardiorespiratory problems, perforation, bleeding), occurred in 1.9% of upper and 1.3% of lower endoscopies. 95% of upper and 77% of lower endoscopies were completed. Abnormal endoscopic findings were found in 50% and 47% of upper and lower endoscopies respectively while abnormal histologic findings were found in 50% and 64%. Overall, evidence of pathology on endoscopic and/or histologic exam was found in 67% of upper and 70% of lower endoscopies. Abnormal findings on endoscopic exam predicted abnormal histologic findings in 51% and 80% of upper and lower endoscopies respectively (positive predictive values). Similarly, normal findings on endoscopic exam predicited normal histologic findings in 63% and 60% of upper and lower endoscopies respectively (negative predictive values). Conclusion: Upper and lower endoscopies were well tolerated in this population and abnormal endoscopic and histologic findings were common. Endoscopy findings were only predictive of histology findings for abnormal lower endoscopy exams. Prospective studies are required to assess the impact of these procedures on clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".