MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790627546 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.053

A52 PERORAL ENDOSCOPIC MYOTOMY (POEM) FOR TREATING ACHALASIA: A SINGLE CENTER’S RESULTS

2018· article· en· W2790627546 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew Woo, Robert Bechara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchalasiaMyotomyMedicineDysphagiaSurgerySingle CenterEsophageal motility disorderEsophagus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achalasia, a primary esophageal motor disorder characterized by insufficient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation and loss of esophageal peristalsis, results in dysphagia, chest pain, regurgitation and weight loss. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a recently developed method of treating achalasia, less invasively than surgical myotomy. The objective of this study was to report the early outcomes of a series of patients treated with POEM in a single Canadian center. 11 consecutive patients with achalasia (8 men, 3 women, mean age 51.82 years [range 31–80], mean duration of symptoms 100 mo [range 10 mo–30 yrs]) from a single tertiary center in Kingston, Ontario underwent 12 peroral endoscopic myotomies (POEM) between March 2016 and Sept 2016. A submucosal tunnel extending to the gastroesophageal junction was created endoscopically and then an endoscopic myotomy (mean length 12.92 ± 2.84cm in the distal esophagous, 3.17 ± 0.43cm in the cardia) of the circular muscle bundles was performed. The mucosal defect was closed with hemostatic clips (5 ± 0.43). The mean operating time was 117.17 ± 30.8 min. Pre- and post-operative assessments included Eckhardt scores, barium swallow, endoscopy and manometry. There were no complications. The mean Eckardt score pre-procedure was 7.90 ± 1.1 (range 6–10). 9 patients underwent follow-up [mean duration 2.33 ± 1.5 mo, range 0–5 mo] with post-procedure Eckardt score of 0.78 ± 0.97 (range 0–3). The improvement was statistically significant (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in the improvement of symptoms in patients with type 2 achalasia (n=2) [pre-procedure Eckardt 8.67, post-procedure Eckardt 0.00, difference 8.67] and patients with type 3 achalasia (n=5) [pre-procedure Eckardt 8.17, post-procedure Eckardt 1.00, difference 7.17]. Patients with >1 previous treatments (n=3) for achalasia, including balloon dilation, botox injection and Heller myotomy, experienced statistically significant improvement in their symptoms [mean pre-procedure Eckardt 8.00 ± 0, mean post-procedure Eckardt 1.33 ± 1.55, p<0.05]. Of four patients who underwent follow-up endoscopy, none had any endoscopic evidence of esophagitis. A difficulty score involving tunnel distension, abnormal contractions, submucosal oozing, submucosal fibrosis, tunnel orientation was calculated (mean score 2.67). The mean difficulty score per morphology was as follows: non-sigmoid non-dilated, 2.17; non-sigmoid dilated, 2.50; sigmoid S1, 2.50; sigmoid S2, 4.00. Difficulty score was found to strongly correlate with operative time (r=0.88). POEM is a safe and effective method of managing achalasia, specifically in groups that have been previously shown to be less responsive to surgical therapy, e.g. type 3 achalasia and those with previous anti-achalasia procedures. A difficulty score has been shown to correlate with operative time and warrants further investigation. 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207