MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Review article: towards consistency in the endoscopic diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus and columnar metaplasia

2004· review· en· W2123772935 on OpenAlexaff
David Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBarrett's oesophagusMedicineEndoscopyIntestinal metaplasiaMetaplasiaGastroenterologyInternal medicineRefluxGeneral surgeryAdenocarcinomaDiseaseCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barrett's oesophagus is associated with severe reflux disease and is a risk factor for oesophageal adenocarcinoma. However, there is a lack of consensus on how to assess the presence and extent of Barrett's oesophagus in clinical practice. A diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus is currently based on the recognition of an abnormal oesophageal mucosa at endoscopy. However, a diagnosis cannot be made solely on this basis, and a true diagnosis requires the identification of an area suspicious for columnar metaplasia at endoscopy, followed by histological confirmation. Currently, difficulties in the assessment of Barrett's oesophagus include a lack of consistent definitions of endoscopic landmarks (such as the gastro-oesophageal and squamo-columnar junctions), a lack of standardization of descriptions of the extent of Barrett's oesophagus, and limited communication between the endoscopist and the pathologist, which hampers accurate histological confirmation. It is therefore important to develop an endoscopic description of Barrett's oesophagus, with a clear definition of endoscopic landmarks, to determine, amongst other things, whether anti-reflux therapy produces regression or a reduction in the length of Barrett's oesophagus. With this background, a subgroup of the International Working Group on the Classification of Oesophagitis was charged with developing a simple, practicable classification system, suitable for use with standard endoscopes, which would be easy to apply in clinical practice and in large clinical studies. Described in this review are a series of propositions and an overview of the 'CM classification', developed by the International Working Group on the Classification of Oesophagitis, to facilitate the endoscopic description of Barrett's oesophagus. It is hoped that these propositions will be the first step in the development of standard endoscopic diagnostic criteria for Barrett's oesophagus, relevant to clinical practice and clinical research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations80
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlimentary Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207