Is There a Role for Sonde Enteroscopy in Patients with Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding? A Comparison with Capsule Endoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the 1980's and 1990's combined Push and Sonde Enteroscopy was the primary endoscopic tool used to evaluate the small intestine in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). It was available in only a few centers due to the technical difficulties associated with its use. The introduction of wireless capsule endoscopy in 2001 revolutionalized small bowel endoscopic imaging making Sonde enteroscopy a rarely used procedure despite the lack of studies comparing the efficacy of the two modalities. The aim of this study was to restrospectively compare the findings of Sonde enteroscopy with capsule endoscopy in patients with OGIB. METHODS: Design: One hundred patients who underwent Sonde enteroscopy and 101 patients who underwent capsule endoscopy were retrospectively studied. Setting: All patients had their procedures completed by physicians within the same gastroenterology practice. Patients: All patients who underwent either Sonde enteroscopy or capsule endoscopy were enrolled. Interventions: None. Main outcome measurements: Outcome was defined as the number of patients in which a distinct bleeding site could be identified. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients underwent Push and Sonde enteroscopy and a potential bleeding site was identified in 55 (55%) patients. A total of 101 patients underwent capsule endoscopy and a potential bleeding site was identified in 60 (59%) patients. A one-tailed P value showed no statistically significant difference in the diagnostic yield between the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule endoscopy is at least as efficacious as Push/Sonde enteroscopy in evaluating patients with OGIB. We can comfortably retire Sonde enteroscopy as a diagnostic tool.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".