The Influence of Snare Size on the Utility and Safety of Cold Snare Polypectomy for the Removal of Colonic Polyps in Japanese Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been recently reported to be useful for the removal of small colonic polyps. However, the relationship between the histologically complete resection rate and snare size used during CSP has not been reported. Our aim was to assess the utility of CSP. METHODS: We analyzed the histologically complete resection rates and the frequency of complications for 175 colon polyps removed by CSP. Moreover, we examined the histologically complete resection rate associated with different snare sizes used during CSP. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the histologically complete resection rate between endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (60.9%) and CSP (53.1%). There were also no significant differences in the frequency of complications including perforation and postoperative bleeding between EMR (perforation: none; postoperative bleeding: two patients) and CSP (perforation: none; postoperative bleeding: none). Histological examination revealed that the complete resection rate of CSP using a short snare (61.6%) was significantly higher than that of CSP using a long snare (44.9%; P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the frequency of complications between CSP using the short snare and that using the long snare. CONCLUSIONS: CSP is a safe, useful method for the removal of colonic polyps. CSP using the short snare improved the histologically complete resection rates compared to the long snare. Future studies to further assess the utility of CSP are required.
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 | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".