Withdrawal Times and Associated Factors in Colonoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use and impact of the recommended withdrawal time of at least 6 minutes from the cecum in colonoscopy in multiple gastroenterology endoscopy ambulatory surgery centers serving a wide geographical area. METHODS: An observational prospective multicenter quality assurance review was conducted in 49 ambulatory surgery centers in 17 states with 315 gastroenterologists. There was no intervention with this quality assessment program as care of patients and the routine of gastroenterologists continued as standard practice. Multivariable analysis was applied to the database to examine factors affecting withdrawal time and polyp detection. RESULTS: There were 15,955 consecutive qualified patients receiving colonoscopies in a designated 4-week period. Gastroenterologists with average withdrawal times of 6 minutes or more in patients with no polyps were 1.8 times more likely to detect 1 or more polyps and had a significantly higher rate (P<0.0001) of polyp detection in patients with findings of polyps compared to gastroenterologists with average withdrawal times of less than 6 minutes in patients with no polyps. For patients with no pathology, the mean time of withdrawal was 6.98 (SD=4.34) minutes and for patients with pathology mean time of withdrawal was 11.27 (SD=6.71) minutes. Strongest predictors of withdrawal time of 6 minutes or more were presence of carcinoma (3.7 times more likely than those with no pathology), adenoma (2.0 times more likely than those with no pathology), and number of polyps visualized (1.7 times more likely for each polyp). CONCLUSIONS: This quality assurance assessment from standard colonoscopy practices of 315 gastroenterologists in 49 endoscopic ambulatory surgery centers serving a wide geographical area provides support for the merits of a colonoscopy withdrawal time from the cecum of 6 minutes or more to improve the detection of polyps.
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 | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".