MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792742551 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.158

A158 COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF FECAL CALPROTECTIN AS A DIAGNOSTIC OR MONITORING TOOL FOR IBD: A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE

2018· article· en· W2792742551 on OpenAlexaffabout
Asrar Alahmadi, M Al Khalaf, Manal O. Elnenaei, Jennifer Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicS100 Proteins and Annexins
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalprotectinMedicineAmbulatoryCost effectivenessSingle CenterInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyAuditGastroenterologyInflammatory Bowel DiseasesFaecal calprotectinEmergency medicineInflammatory bowel disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fecal calprotectin (FC) is a protein that is produced by neutrophils and monocytes. It can be detected in tissues, body fluids and stool which makes it valuable marker for neutrophil activity. FC concentrations increase in intestinal inflammation which makes it a valuable tool to distinguish inflammatory from non-inflammatory gastrointestinal conditions. We conducted a retrospective quality assurance audit on the use and cost-effectiveness of fecal Calprotectin assay at the Outpatient Gastroenterology Clinic at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center in Halifax, NS. To assess our use of Feacal Caloprotectin and the cost-effectiveness of it in our practice Patients being followed through the gastroenterology clinic at the QE II Health Sciences Center who underwent FC testing were identified through lab services at the NSHA central zone. Inclusion criteria included any adult patient being followed through the GI ambulatory clinic at the QE II Health Sciences Center (HSC). A retrospective chart review was conducted for any FC testing performed between September 28, 2017 and March 29, 2017. Clinical visits before and after FC testing were reviewed for indication and to determine the clinical impact of FC testing. We considered FC testing to have had a “positive clinical impact” if it lead to dose escalation or change of medication (IBD management) or aided in endoscopic decision making. FC testing was considered to be cost-effective if supplanted endoscopic investigation for purposes of monitoring or screening patients. One hundred and five FC tests were ordered over a period of 6 months (28th September 2017 to 29 March 2017). Eighty-one FC tests had clinical information which allowed for evaluation of test indications and outcomes. Seventy percent of the patients were female. FC testing was ordered as a screening test for bowel inflammation (21%) or as an IBD disease monitoring tool (77%). The most common clinical symptoms prompting FC testing in IBD patients were diarrhea and abdominal pain (53% and 32%, respectively). The test aided in clinical decision making in 50 patients (61.7%). In some cases, FC results didn’t change the clinical decision making process (23%), were not followed-up after the test (13%), or the indication wasn’t clear (1%). In 28 patients, the decision to perform endoscopic investigation was prompted by the FC results. Colonoscopy was averted in almost 40 percent of the patients as a result of normal FC concentrations. FC was demonstrated to have significant clinical impact when used to diagnose or monitor patients with IBD. The results of this study suggest that FC-enhanced diagnosis and monitoring may be more cost-effective than non-FC enhanced clinical decision making. Larger, long-term studies that consider the impact on health economics are needed. 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 GastroenterologySame topicS100 Proteins and AnnexinsFrench-language works237,207