MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401866647 · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000000311

Dynamic Article

2015· article· en· W2401866647 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Colon & Rectum · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski HospitalUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryLaparoscopic surgeryEndoscopyEndoscopic mucosal resectionDysplasiaRetrospective cohort studyLaparoscopyColorectal surgeryGeneral surgeryAbdominal surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery is a novel technique that can be used to avoid bowel resection for complex colon polyps that are not amenable to colonoscopic resection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and outcomes of combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery for complex colonic polyps. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review of consecutive combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgeries. SETTING: This study was conducted at a single institution. PATIENTS: All patients that underwent combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery for a complex colonic polyp at our center from October 2009 to October 2013 were followed. Each patient's lesion was assessed by a therapeutic endoscopist before referral for combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery, and was deemed unresectable based on size, broad base, or location of the polyp. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and recurrence were the primary outcomes measured. RESULTS: Thirty consecutive patients underwent combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery. Twenty (66.7%) patients underwent laparoscopic-assisted colonoscopic polyp excision (10 of these excisions were facilitated by Endoloop placement at the polyp base), 9 (30%) patients underwent colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic cecectomy, and 1 (3.3%) patient was converted from a colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic cecectomy to a laparoscopic ileocolic resection. The median length of hospital stay was 2 days (range, 1-16). Twenty-nine (96.7%) of the final pathology results were benign, with 10 (33.3%) showing high-grade dysplasia. One (3.3%) final pathology result was positive for a well-differentiated adenocarcinoma. This patient subsequently underwent a laparoscopic right hemicolectomy and chemotherapy for node-positive disease. One (3.3%) patient experienced a recurrent benign polyp at the previous excision site, which was removed by colonoscopy. The time to detection of recurrence was 274 days. LIMITATIONS: This study looked at a small group of patients, over a short follow-up period. However, all consecutive patients were captured, and there were no losses to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery for complex benign colonic polyps is a safe procedure, with good clinical outcomes and low recurrence rates.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.278 · 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