Hot biopsy forceps in the diagnosis of endobronchial lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrocoagulation bronchoscopy biopsy forceps may prevent bleeding, but could also impair the quality of the specimens obtained. Patients with endobronchial lesions during bronchoscopy underwent six endobronchial biopsies each with a hot biopsy forceps, alternating between with electrocoagulation ("hot") and without ("cold"). Bleeding was quantified on a scale of 1-4, with 1 being no bleeding. The generator was set on "soft coagulation" mode, with power settings of 40, 60, 80 and 100 W for each group of 10 patients in a sequential fashion. Clinical pathology results were recorded before samples were reviewed by a second, blinded, pulmonary pathologist. A total of 39 patients with 40 endobronchial lesions had six biopsies performed (one patient had only four samples taken), giving a total of 238 biopsy samples. Concordance between hot and cold samples was 92.5% for the clinical pathologist and 87% for the blinded pathologist. Paired analysis suggested lower average bleeding score with the use of hot forceps. Overall bleeding rates for cold and hot biopsies, respectively, were as follows: grade 1: 30.3 and 41.2%; grade 2: 62.2 and 49.6%; grade 3: 7.6 and 9.2%; and grade 4: 0 and 0%. In conclusion, the use of hot biopsy forceps for endobronchial biopsy does not appear to have a negative impact on the pathological samples. Hot biopsy forceps showed a statistically significant reduction in bleeding score, which is unlikely to be of clinical significance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".