A323 A PERSONALIZED MEDICINE APPROACH TO THE ROLE OF RECTAL INDOMETHACIN IN PREVENTING POST -ERCP PANCREATITIS: A META- ANALYSIS OF AGGREGATE SUBGROUP DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite initial evidence in the literature favoring rectal indomethacin in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), recent studies have been controversial in supporting its universal use, in part due to varying patient selection. To identify optimal patient subgroups who might benefit the most from rectal indomethacin. A comprehensive electronic literature search was done. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rectal indomethacin and placebo in preventing PEP. Methodological quality was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool as well as Jadad scale. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed. Several subgroup, sensitivity and individual participant data were completed based on specific risk factors or patient characteristics to characterize patient populations who benefit most from the intervention. The rate of PEP. A total of seven out of 336 trials published between 2007 and 2016 (n=3096) were included. The pooled proportion estimate of PEP rate was 5.6% with indomethacin and 8.7% with placebo. Random model meta-analysis showed the overall rate of pancreatitis was significantly lower with rectal indomethacin [OR=0.54(0.36–0.82), number needed to treat =19]. In subgroup analysis, the difference was not significantly different in an unselected population, but was when restricting the analysis to high-risk patients [OR: 0.42 (0.27–0.66)]. Subgroup analysis showed that administering rectal indomethacin before rather than during or after procedure significantly reduced the rate of PEP [OR:0.53(0.37–076)]. Individual participant data showed rectal indomethacin significantly prevented PEP in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) [0.47(0.28–0.77)] and those undergoing biliary sphincterotomy [OR:0.72 (0.52–0.99)], but not in those undergoing pre-cut or pancreatic sphincterotomy, or prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. Rectal indomethacin also significantly decreased the rate of moderate to severe PEP in all patients [OR: 0.47 (0.28–0.79)]. Sensitivity analysis showed that the lower quality of studies favored indomethacin. Rectal indomethacin significantly reduces the risk of PEP in high-risk, and more specifically SOD patients; it decreases the occurrence of moderate to severe PEP in all patients, only if given pre-procedure. Additional data are needed to assess the additional contribution of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. None
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 | 0.031 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.068 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".