MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139659141 · doi:10.1155/2008/837347

Canadian Credentialing Guidelines for Colonoscopy

2008· article· en· W2139659141 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joseph Romagnuolo, Robert Enns, Terry Ponich, Jonathon Springer, David Armstrong, Alan Barkun

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University Medical CentreSt Joseph's Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredentialingColonoscopyMedicineMedical physicsGeneral surgeryMedical educationInternal medicineColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of credentialing guidelines for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed in the management of adult patients has been developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) Endoscopy Committee, approved by the Clinical Affairs Committee, and reviewed and endorsed by the Executive Board.In the present article, the CAG suggests specific guidelines for credentialing colonoscopy.It is intended to be read in conjunction with the introductory article that outlines the principles of credentialing (1).The CAG does not credential individuals for colonoscopy; that is the responsibility of the endoscopist's local institution or facility.The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a framework that will allow organizations to assess the training and competence of applicants to perform colonoscopy as part of the credentialing process for the granting of privileges.Colonoscopy is performed to visualize the colonic mucosa, and can be both a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure; it requires the passage of a specialized endoscope -a colonoscope -via the anus or a colostomy to the cecum and, in some cases, to the terminal ileum.The purpose of the procedure is to document any abnormalities, to take biopsies and perform photographic documentation when appropriate, to remove polyps, or to perform therapy such as stricture dilation or hemostasis, if necessary, while minimizing procedure-related risks such as excessive sedation, cardiorespiratory compromise, bleeding and colonic perforation. COGNITIVE ASPECTS Appropriate indicationsKnowledge of appropriate contraindications and indications for colonoscopy, and the application of appropriate screening and surveillance intervals, is essential.Appropriate indications for colonoscopy, recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, are shown in Table 1 (2).An indication should be documented for each procedure, and if it is a nonstandard indication, it should be justified in the documentation (3).Studies have shown that when colonoscopy is performed for appropriate reasons, significantly more clinically relevant diagnoses are made (4-6).However,

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.006

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations43
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207