MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2792681492 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.253

A252 IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY FOR BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS: A CANADIAN EXPERIENCE (2010–2016).

2018· article· en· W2792681492 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joel David, Paul J. Belletrutti, M Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntestinal metaplasiaDysplasiaBarrett's esophagusRadiofrequency ablationEsophagusEndoscopic mucosal resectionEndoscopyQuality of life (healthcare)SurgeryAblation TherapyInternal medicineGastroenterologyCancerAblationAdenocarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are safe and effective modalities to eradicate Barrett’s esophagus (BE). There is limited Canadian data as to the value of these endoscopic therapies particularly the impact on patient quality life (QoL). To determine the efficacy of RFA +/- EMR therapy for BE in the Calgary Zone including QoL impact. A retrospective review was completed of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent endoscopic therapy of BE in the Calgary Zone from June 2010-August 2016. Treatment response was evaluated primarily as complete remission of dysplasia (CRD =absence of dysplasia on 2nd surveillance endoscopy post-treatment) and complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM =absence of BE on 2nd surveillance endoscopy post-treatment). Since 2014, all patients who received endoscopic therapy were invited to complete QoL questionnaires at each visit. QoL responses from baseline and 9–15 months later were analysed. Forty-two patients (95% male, mean age=67) with a mean BE length of 6.4cm completed endoscopic therapy. In those with high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer (n=20), 18 had CRD (90%) and 15 achieved CRIM (75%) after a mean 3.2 RFA sessions (range 1–6). For low-grade dysplasia (n=15), 14 patients (93%) had CRD and 11 (73%) achieved CRIM after a mean 3.4 RFA sessions (range 1–8). In non-dysplastic BE (n=7), 6 (86%) achieved CRIM after a mean 4.7 RFA sessions (range 3–7). Overall, 15 (36%) patients had EMR during the course of treatment. Four patients (9%) developed a symptomatic stricture as a result of treatment. In the QoL survey (Table 1), after endoscopic treatment of BE, patients had significantly reduced worry about esophagectomy (p=0.01) and less stress due to their esophageal condition (p=0.03). There was also a trend toward decreased disease worry (p=0.14). In Calgary, endoscopic therapy was safe and highly effective in achieving CRD and CRIM. Impact of these treatments on QoL is also significant, as patients progressively had less worry about esophagectomy and associated stress. Further prospective data is needed to confirm this response is sustained. QoL responses in patients who completed Barrett’s endotherapy (n=18). QoL responses are expressed as median (interquartile range). 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)0.001
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 score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 topicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→