MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2791193790 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.004

A4 PERORAL ENDOSCOPIC MYOTOMY IS EFFECTIVE AND SAFE IN NON-ACHALASIA ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY DISORDERS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTICENTER STUDY

2018· article· en· W2791193790 on OpenAlexaff
M Khashab, M Masckauchan, Pietro Familiari, Peter V. Draganov, Hanaa Dakour Aridi, J Cho, Michael Ujiki, Ricardo Rio Tinto, H Louis, Pankaj Desai, Vic Velanovich, Eduardo Albéniz, Amyn Haji, Jeffrey Marks, Guido Costamagna, Jacques Devière, Yaseen Perbtani, Mason Hedberg, Fermín Estremera, Lyna M. Campo, Dennis Yang, Majidah Bukhari, Omid Sanaei, Lea Fayad, Ank A Agarwal, Vivek Kumbhari, Y Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchalasiaMyotomyMedicineEsophageal motility disorderEsophageal DisorderHeller myotomyEsophageal spasmSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyEsophagusSpasticCohortAdverse effectInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an effective minimally invasive alternative modality to Heller myotomy for the treatment of achalasia. However, the efficacy of POEM in non-achalasia esophageal motility disorders has not yet been well demonstrated. These disorders include spastic esophageal conditions such as esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO), diffuse esophageal spasm (DES), and Jackhammer esophagus (JE). The objective of this international multicenter study was to assess the clinical outcomes of POEM in patients with non-achalasia disorders, namely DES, JE, and EGJOO, in a large cohort of patients. This was a retrospective study at 11 centers. Consecutive patients who underwent POEM for EGJOO, DES, or JE between January 2014 and September 2016 were included, patients with achalasia were excluded. Rates of technical success (completion of myotomy), clinical response (symptom improvement and Eckardt score ≤ 3), and adverse events (AEs, severity per ASGE lexicon) were ascertained. LES and cardia myotomy was performed in all cases, although it is unknown if this is essential in patients with DES and JE. A total of 50 patients (56% female; mean age 61.7 years) underwent POEM for EGJOO (n=15), DES (n=17), and JE (n=18). Mean duration of symptoms was 53.2 months and most patients (68%) were treatment naïve. Technical success was achieved in all patients with a mean procedural time of 88.4 ± 44.7 min. The mean total myotomy length was 15.1 ± 4.7 cm. Clinical success was achieved in 93.3% of EGJOO and in 84.9% of DES/JE (p=0.41) with a median follow-up of 195 and 272 days, respectively. Chest pain improved in 88.9% of EGJOO and 87.0% of DES/JE (p=0.88). Mean Eckardt score decreased from 6.2 to 1.0 in EGJOO (p<0.001) and from 6.9 to 1.9 in DES/JE (p<0.001). A total of 9 (18%) AEs occurred and were rated as mild in 55.6% and moderate in 44.4%. These rates were comparable between both groups (13.3% vs 20%, p=0.58). POEM is effective and safe in the management of non-achalasia esophageal motility disorders, which include diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. Although AEs occurred in 18% of patients, none were severe and all complications were managed intraprocedurally or conservatively. Given that DES and JE do not typically have EGJ outflow obstruction, whether LES myotomy is required in these patients remains to be determined 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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→