Wireless Capsule Endoscopy for Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Single Center, One Year Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wireless capsule endoscopy (CE) is increasingly being used in the investigation of obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, but some studies have found that many of the bleeding lesions recognized by this technique are within the reach of conventional endoscopy. METHODS: The results of CE performed in the authors' centre in a 12 month period for obscure GI bleeding were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 46 patients with obscure GI bleeding, CE found a definite or probable cause in 19 (41%) and a possible cause in another 10 (22%), with an overall diagnostic yield of 63%. One of these lesions was found to be within reach of conventional gastroscopy, two were within reach of push enteroscopy, four were within reach of colonoscopy and one was within reach of retrograde enteroscopy through a stoma. The percentage of patients with a bleeding source within reach of routine endoscopy but missed during pre-CE endoscopy was significantly higher for those patients having endoscopy only in the community (30% [eight of 27]) versus in the authors' centre (0% [zero of 19]). CONCLUSIONS: CE was valuable for diagnosing bleeding lesions not only within the small bowel, but also in the stomach and colon. However, "second-look" endoscopy may be considered before ordering CE for obscure GI bleeding when local expertise is available.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".