MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2791562687 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.043

A43 UTILITY OF A DIFFICULTY SCORE IN PERORAL ENDOSCOPIC MYOTOMY (POEM) FOR TREATING ACHALASIA

2018· article· en· W2791562687 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew Woo, Robert Bechara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchalasiaMyotomyMedicineDysphagiaSurgeryEsophagusEsophageal motility disorderInterquartile rangeHeller myotomyChest painHigh resolution manometryEndoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achalasia, a primary esophageal motor disorder characterized by incomplete 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 and to assess the correlation between pre- and peri-operative factors and a POEM difficulty score (PDS). 29 consecutive patients with achalasia (16 men, 13 women, mean age 51.0 +/- 17.4, median duration of symptoms 60 mo [range 10 mo – 600 mo]) from a single tertiary center in Kingston, Ontario underwent 30 peroral endoscopic myotomies (POEM) between March 2016 and Sept 2017. A submucosal tunnel extending from the esophagus to the proximal stomach was created, and then a myotomy (mean length 14.6 ± 3.0 cm in the esophagus and 2.5 ± 0.81 cm in the cardia) of the circular muscle was performed. The mucosal incision was closed with hemostatic clips (median 5, range 4–6). The mean operating time was 92.1 ± 30.4 min. Pre- and post-operative assessments included Eckardt scores, timed barium esophagram, endoscopy and manometry. The median Eckardt score pre-procedure was 8 (range 4 - 12). 25 patients underwent follow-up (median duration 10 mo, range 2–18 mo) with post-procedure median Eckardt score of 1 (range 0 - 3). The improvement was statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed ranks p < 0.001). The reduction in integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) in 13 patients who underwent follow-up manometry was 13.2 +/- 8.9 mmHg (paired samples t-test p < 0.001). 57% (12/21) of patients who underwent follow-up EGD or 24h pH study had evidence of acid reflex. A difficulty score (POEM difficulty score), consisting of tunnel distension, submucosal oozing, submucosal fibrosis, spastic contractions and tunnel orientation was calculated. The median difficulty score for non-sigmoid (83%) was 1.5 (0–4) and for sigmoid morphology (17%) was 2.5 (1–5). The median difficulty score for type 1 achalasia (3%) was 1, type 2 achalasia (45%) was 1.5 (1 – 2.5) and type 3 achalasia (45%) was 2 (0 – 4). The PDS strongly correlated with POEM velocity (r=0.83) and this was significant (Spearman’s p < 0.001). There was no significant correlation with BMI, duration of disease or previous procedures. There were no complications. POEM is a safe, effective and durable method of managing achalasia. A difficulty score has been shown to correlate with POEM velocity and warrants further investigation. In the future, the PDS may be used to aid in the development of formal training protocol for POEM, in addition correlation with pre-procedural variables and post-procedure outcomes will be further investigated. 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)0.002
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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