Feasibility of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Lesions: A Single Center Study in Japan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternative technique for the resection of colorectal lesions. This study aimed to evaluate our initial experience using U-EMR. Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective case series study. We analyzed the clinical outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent U-EMR in our endoscopy center, from December 2015 to February 2017. Results: Our analysis included 64 lesions, contributed by 38 patients, with a mean age of 68.6 years (range, 25 to 90 years). The study sample included 33 right-sided and 25 left-sided colon lesions, and seven rectal lesions, with an average size of 16.2 mm (6 - 40 mm). Of these, 46 lesions were polypoid and 18 ones non-polypoid. Histologically, 31 lesions were low-grade adenomas, eight ones were high-grade adenomas, 11 were mucosal cancers, four were submucosal cancers, and 10 were classified as “others” . En bloc resection was achieved in 52 (81%) lesions, with an en bloc resection rate of 95% for lesions < 20 mm and 55% for lesions < 20 mm. Complete resection of neoplastic epithelial lesions, defined by a negative pathological margin, was achieved in 32 of 59 neoplastic epithelial lesions (54%). We identified three cases (5%) of post-procedural bleeding and one case of perforation (2%). Conclusions: U-EMR can be feasibly used for resection of colonic lesions, including lesions >= 20 mm, although the en bloc resection rate for these lesions was lower than for lesions < 20 mm. Gastroenterol Res. 2018;11(4):274-279 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1021w
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it