MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790331170 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.217

A217 EXTERNAL VALIDATION OF THE PARK SCORE FOR BOWEL PREPARATION CLEANLINESS DURING CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY

2018· article· en· W2790331170 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad H. Alageeli, Brian Yan, Sergio Zepeda-Gómez, Suliman Alshankiti, Laurel Stitt, Benson Thomas, Zoya Bahreini, R Homenauth, ThucNhi T. Dang, Rymon Rofaiel, Meshari A. Alzahrani, Cassandra Townsend, David Yoo, Jennifer Jarosh, Milica Kloc, Alexis Smith, Chantal Singh, Jacqueline A. Luhoway, Lucas Merotto, O Gilani, Joshua Friedland, Michael Sey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreProvincial Health Services AuthorityUniversity of AlbertaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapsule endoscopyCapsuleMedicineIntraclass correlationBowel preparationEndoscopyEndoscopeColonoscopySurgeryGastroenterologyInternal medicinePsychometricsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capsule endoscopy is the test of choice for small intestinal diseases although it can be limited by poor bowel preparation. The Park score measures small intestinal cleanliness based on the % of mucosa visualized and % of view obstructed and is a promising tool for assessing small bowel preparation although further validation is required before it can be routinely used. The objective of this study was to externally validate the Park score among a large number of readers with varying levels of expertise in capsule endoscopy. A total of 20 readers consisting of 4 capsule endoscopists, 4 GI fellows, 4 internal medicine residents, 4 medical students, and 4 nurses were invited to participate in the study. All readers completed a web-based Training Module on the Park score followed by an Assessment Module which was repeated 4 weeks later. The Assessment Module consisted of 1,233 images derived from 25 randomly selected capsule videos. Images were selected at 5 minute intervals between the first duodenal and first cecal images of each video and readers rated the % of the mucosa visualized and the % of view obstructed as defined by the Park score. The primary outcome was inter-observer and intra-observer agreement for the total score and secondary outcomes included stratification by subscores and reader group. Agreement was determined based on intraclass correlation coefficients. The mean inter-observer and intra-observer agreement for the total Park score between all readers was 0.81 (95% CI 0.70–0.87) and 0.92 (0.87–0.94). Stratified by sub-scores, the mean inter and intra-observer agreement for % visualized mucosa was 0.79 (0.67–0.85) and 0.91 (0.86–0.93) and for % of view obstructed was 0.77 (0.64–0.84) and 0.91 (0.87–0.94). The agreement between capsule endoscopists and GI fellows, internal medicine residents, medical students, and nurses were 0.93 (0.88–0.97), 0.90 (0.82–0.95), 0.90 (0.82–0.95), 0.85 (0.74–0.92), respectively. The Park score is a simple and reliable scoring system to measure small intestinal cleanliness with excellent agreement between a wide range of readers with varying levels of experience with capsule endoscopy. 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesFrench-language works237,207