A284 ARGON PLASMA COAGULATION ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH HEMOSPRAY FOR RADIATION PROCTITIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiation proctitis is a common complication of radiation therapy. Although, argon Plasma Coagulation (APC) is the standard therapy for this condition, not all patients respond well. Hemospray (HS) is a relatively new endoscopic method for hemostasis. It is unclear if the addition of HS to APC would result in symptomatic improvement. To compare the effect of the combination therapy (APC and HS) to APC alone on recurrent rectal bleeding. This was a randomized controlled trial. All patients who were referred for rectal bleeding and had a history of pelvic radiation were invited to participate. Patients were randomly assigned to either APC alone or APC+HS if radiation proctitis was endoscopically diagnosed. The primary outcome was the subjective improvement of rectal bleeding as reported by patients. The outcome was considered positive for 50% or more improvement in bleeding as reported by patients. Assessment of response was done through follow up clinic visits or follow up phone calls for patients who had no clinic follow up. A total of 18 patients were included in the study between April 2014 to July 2016. The mean age was 78 years. 16 (89%) were male patients treated for radiation for prostate cancer. 2 (11%) were female patients with endometrial cancer. 10 (55.5%) patients were randomly assigned to the combination therapy (APC+HS) and 8 (44.5%) to APC only. Mean follow up was 9.3 months after therapy. 7 out of 10 patients (70%) in the combination group reported positive response compared to 6 out of 8 (75%) in patients treated with APC only. There was no significant difference in response between the two groups (P value=1) In this pilot study, the addition of hemospray to argon plasma coagulation did not result in an improvement of rectal bleeding. 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".