MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739276358 · doi:10.1111/1759-7714.12481

Influence of trainee involvement on procedural characteristics for linear endobronchial ultrasound

2017· article· en· W2739276358 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Nguyen, Nancy Ferland, Stéphane Beaudoin, Simon Martel, Mathieu Simon, Francis Laberge, Noël Lampron, Marc Fortin, Antoine Delage

Bibliographic record

VenueThoracic Cancer · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndobronchial ultrasoundPulmonologistsRadiologySampling (signal processing)Retrospective cohort studyUltrasoundLidocaineLymph nodeBronchoscopySurgeryInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Linear endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) is a safe and effective method for the diagnostic sampling of mediastinal lymph nodes. However, there is a learning curve associated with the procedure and operator experience influences diagnostic yield. We sought to determine if trainee involvement during EBUS influences procedural characteristics, complication rate, and diagnostic yield. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 220 subjects who underwent an EBUS procedure at our center from December 2012 to June 2013. Procedures were performed by six different interventional pulmonologists with substantial experience with EBUS or by a trainee under their direct supervision. Procedural characteristics and complications were recorded. Diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy were compared between groups. RESULTS: EBUS was performed in 220 patients with a trainee involved (n = 116) or by staff physician alone (n = 104). Patient characteristics, and the number and size of lymph node stations sampled were similar. EBUS duration was longer (16.0 vs. 13.7 minutes; P = 0.002) and the total dose of lidocaine used was higher (322.3 vs. 304.2 mg; P = 0.045) when a trainee was involved. The rate of adequate specimens sampled was comparable between the groups (92.0 vs. 92.0%; P = 0.60). Diagnostic yield was lower when a trainee was involved in the EBUS procedure (52.6 vs. 68.3%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Trainee involvement significantly increased EBUS duration and the dose of local anesthesia used for the procedure. Diagnostic yield was lower when a trainee was involved. Factors accounting for this difference in yield, despite adequate samples being obtained, warrant further investigation.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoracic CancerSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207