MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906750786 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314472.75

OC-075 Impact of pre-existing biliary stents on eus staging in patients with a head of pancreas mass

2017· article· en· W2906750786 on OpenAlexaff
NL Bekkali, MK Nayar, Samantha Johnson, Lucy Thornton, Antony Darné, Beate Haugk, John Leeds, RM Charnley, KW Oppong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStentRadiologyEndoscopic ultrasoundHead of pancreasPancreasCommon bile ductBiliary drainageBile ductSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are superior to plastic stents (PS) for pre-operative drainage of the common bile duct (CBD) and are increasingly preferred. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has a role in staging particularly of tumours that are borderline operable on CT. Biliary stents can cause acoustic shadowing and artefacts thereby reducing the view of the posterior aspect of the tumour and its relationship to local vessels. SEMS have a larger cross-sectional profile and may cause more shadowing than PS. There are to date no published studies of the impact of biliary stents on EUS staging. The aim of this study is to assess whether the presence of a biliary stent impairs the accuracy of linear EUS staging. Method The study group comprised all patients with head of pancreas (HOP) mass undergoing EUS biopsy between January 2013 and June 2016. Staging information was obtained from the EUS report. Staging was considered accurate when EUS had the same staging with respect to the major vessels (SMV, SMA and PV) as per outcome of surgery or multidisciplinary consensus following imaging review. Any statement indicating inability to fully image the tumour margins due to stent was classified as indicative of inaccurate staging. Accuracy of vascular staging between the stented and unstented group was analysed using Chi-square test. Results A total of 835 patients underwent EUS for a solid pancreatic mass of which 382 had a mass in the HOP. Median age was 67 [25-86] yrs and 326 (85%) were male. At time of EUS, 232 of 382 (61%) patients had no stent and 150 (39%) patients had stents in the CBD; 97 (65%) SEMS and 53 (35%) PS. Staging wasn’t required in 74 patients and reports were not available in 14; 260 had documented EUS staging. Overall staging accuracy was 247/297 (83%); accurate in 39/76 (51%) SEMS patients, 37/43 (86%) with PS and 171/178 (96%) unstented patients. Staging outcomes were significantly different between SEMS compared to the PS group (p=0.0003) and the unstented group, p=0.0001. Difference in staging between plastic stent and the unstented group was also significant, p=0.03. Conclusion Our results show a significant impact of SEMS and plastic stents on EUS staging. The effect is greatest with SEMS. We therefore recommend that patients in whom EUS staging is indicated, who also require biliary drainage, should have EUS performed before stent placement and if biliary drainage must be performed before EUS, plastic stents should be considered. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207