[Evaluation of endoscopic diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus based on analysis of 346 reports].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the different endoscopic ways of diagnosing Barrett's esophagus (BE) and assess the quality of BE endoscopic reports using a rating grid. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three-hundred and forty-six reports concerning BE (1997-2000) were divided into two groups, circular and non-circular BE, and rated on a scale (0 to 20 points) by two readers using a grid to evaluate, in particular, the description of BE, hiatal hernia and esophagitis and biopsy practice. RESULTS: The score was >=10 points for 129 reports (37.3%). Points were deducted because of inadequate description of BE and hiatal hernia and particularly for a lack of biopsies (54% of reports). The indication of endoscopy (BE monitoring) and the form of medical arrangements (out- or in patients) had a significant effect on the mean score of the reports. Circular BE (46.5% of all reports) was described with respect to the height of the squamo-columnar junction (Z line) and the length of BE, and non-circular BE (40.4% of all reports) with respect to the number and height of the strips. Hiatal hernia, if detected, was described (67.2%) by its length, and esophagitis by standard classifications (70.1%). Finally, biopsy practice differed significantly as a function of the indication, the experience and status of the operator, or the medical management of the patient. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the endoscopic reports of BE are not sufficiently rigorous and that the absence of biopsies is frequently not justified. In the future, standardized reports could be proposed by working groups of experts and then prospectively tested and approved.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".