MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diagnostic Yield and Complications of Transbronchial Lung Cryobiopsy for Interstitial Lung Disease. A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis

2016· review· en· W2501120166 on OpenAlexaff
Kerri A. Johannson, Veronica Marcoux, Paul E. Ronksley, Christopher J. Ryerson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaSouth Health CampusUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterstitial lung diseaseMeta-analysisPneumothoraxConfidence intervalLung biopsyLungRadiologyBiopsyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: The diagnostic usefulness and safety of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy for the evaluation of interstitial lung disease remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and metaanalysis aims to establish the diagnostic accuracy and yield of transbronchial cryobiopsy for interstitial lung diseases. METHODS: We searched MedLine, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and conference proceedings to identify studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy (compared with surgical biopsy) or yield of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy for interstitial lung disease (from database inception to January 2016). The diagnostic accuracy and yield were quantified and stratified by the method of diagnosis determination (histologic interpretation in isolation vs. incorporation within a multidisciplinary discussion). The frequency of procedure-related complications was also assessed from these reports. For full-text studies, random-effects models were used to calculate pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy, yield, and complication frequency. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 900 citations, 11 studies were selected for inclusion in this systematic review (7 full text, 4 abstracts). The selected studies reported on a total of 731 patients. No studies reported the diagnostic accuracy of transbronchial cryobiopsy. Diagnostic yield ranged from 74 to 98% when transbronchial cryobiopsy findings were interpreted in isolation, with a pooled estimate of 83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73-94). Diagnostic yield ranged from 51 to 98% when transbronchial cryobiopsy was reviewed within a multidisciplinary discussion, with a pooled estimate of 79% (95% CI, 65-93). Pooled estimates for pneumothorax and moderate/severe bleeding were 12% (95% CI, 3-21) and 39% (95% CI, 3-76), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy cannot be determined given the absence of studies directly comparing cryobiopsy diagnoses with diagnoses derived from surgical lung biopsies interpreted within multidisciplinary discussions. The histopathological and multidisciplinary discussion-based diagnostic yield of transbronchial cryobiopsy appears high, but with variable frequencies of complications dominated by pneumothorax and moderate-to-severe hemorrhage.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.039
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations220
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisFrench-language works237,207