MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2790589961 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.223

A223 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH EUS DIAGNOSTIC YIELD AND ADVERSE EVENT RISK: A LARGE RETROSPECTIVE SINGLE CENTRE STUDY

2018· article· en· W2790589961 on OpenAlexaffabout
Usman Khan, M J Abunassar, Avijit Chatterjee, Paul D. James

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOttawa HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studySedationAdverse effectDemographicsEndoscopic ultrasoundCohortMultivariate analysisSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maximizing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) diagnostic yield (DY) and safety is key to providing high quality care, yet the influence of patient and procedure factors on both these outcomes have only been examined using limited sample sizes. We aim to examine factors associated with EUS diagnostic yield and adverse event (AE) risk using a large cohort of patients who underwent a EUS procedure at our centre. A retrospective chart review of EUS procedures performed between 2009 and 2015 at The Ottawa Hospital was conducted. Data regarding patient demographics and details of the lesion, procedure, medications, and DY were collected. All patient ER visits or hospitalizations within 30 days of the EUS procedure were also collected and reviewed. Relation of the hospital encounter (definitely, possibly, and not) to the EUS procedure was established by consensus using pre-defined criteria. 1647 EUS procedures were examined. The median patient age was 64 (IQR, 53–73) years and 50% were female. Of all EUS cases, 105 (6.4%) presented to the ER or were hospitalized; however, only 58 (3.5%) were related to EUS. DY was 78% for EUS-FNA cases only. Rapid on-site evaluation impacted DY (73% vs. 80%, p = 0.02) but not AE risk (p = 0.53). Multivariate analysis of all cases demonstrated performing a FNA (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.0–4.4) and having anesthesia-guided sedation (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.8–8.5) was associated with an increased AE risk. DY was associated being a smoker (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5–0.9). Upon separating out EUS-FNA procedures only, we found on multivariate analysis that lesions > 3 cm (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1–5.3), using anesthesia-guided sedation (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.3–12.0), and using a P2Y12 inhibitor (OR 7.9, 95% CI 2.5–25.1) was associated with an increased AE risk. Solid lesions (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1–3.6) and lesions > 3 cm (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2–3.2) were associated with an increased DY. Lesions > 3 cm should be subject to fewer FNA passes to decrease AE risk. EUS procedures on patients who expect to receive anesthesia-guided sedation should be reconsidered. Finally, patients receiving P2Y12 inhibitors should not be subject to FNA, unless their medication is stopped. Table 1. Factors associated with adverse events within 30 days of EUS procedure diagnostic and yield, multivariate analysis. 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 Gastroenterology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→