MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789884611 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.280

A279 THE EFFECT OF SHAM FEEDING ON SMALL BOWEL TRANSIT TIME IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY

2018· article· en· W2789884611 on OpenAlexaffabout
George Ou, David O. Prichard, Cherry Galorport, Robert Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapsule endoscopySwallowingMedicineCapsuleRandomizationShort bowel syndromeSurgeryRandomized controlled trialTransit timeGastroenterologyParenteral nutrition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small bowel capsule endoscopy (CE) has limited recording time and does not visualize the entire length of the small intestine in approximately 16.5% of the cases. We hypothesize that bacon-chewing is potent stimulus of cephalic response, which may reduce capsule transit times and improve complete examination rate (CER). To determine if sham feeding with bacon-chewing improves small bowel transit time and completion rate in patients undergoing capsule endoscopy. A prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver, BC has been recruiting since 01/2015. Inclusion: outpatient CE, age ≥ 19. Exclusion criteria: ongoing use of motility-enhancing or slowing drugs, active bowel obstruction, bowel resection, swallowing disorder, diabetes with end-organ damage, untreated thyroid disorder, and endoscopic placement of capsule camera. Given Imaging PillCam SB3TM (Yoqneam, Israel) were used. Participants were assigned to either bacon or control group via concealed allocation based on unrestricted randomization sequence generated prior to study initiation. All subjects underwent bowel preparation with 2L PEG3350 with electrolytes the day before, and fasted ≥ 2h prior to the procedure. They were allowed to drink clear fluids and resume normal diet 2h and 4h post-capsule ingestion, respectively. Immediately after swallowing the capsule, subjects in the bacon group were asked to chew and spit 10 pieces of bacon, each over 30 seconds at one-minute intervals. This process was repeated an hour after ingesting the capsule. Gastric transit time (GTT), small bowel transit time (SBTT), and CER were compared between the groups. This study was approved by institutional research ethics board and registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02353208). Between 01/2015 to 09/2016, 109 CE’s were included in the study, 89 of which were for GI bleeding. CE did not pass the pylorus in four patients in the bacon group during the recording, and were excluded from further transit time analyses. One and two additional CE’s in the control and bacon group, respectively, did not reach cecum during recording and were excluded from SBTT analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in GTT, SBTT, or CER. Sham feeding by chewing and spitting bacon does not alter transit times or CER, and therefore should not be used in an attempt to improve CE yield. Results 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207