MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908807067 · doi:10.1159/000495258

Real-Time Optical Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps in the Routine Clinical Practice Using the NICE and WASP Classifications in a Nonacademic Setting

2019· article· en· W2908807067 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Joana Castela, Susana Mão de Ferro, Isadora Rosa, Pedro Lage, Sara Ferreira, João Pereira da Silva, João Cortez Pinto, Rita Vale Rodrigues, Joana Moleiro, Isabel Claro, Susana Esteves, António Dias Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueGE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineNiceColorectal PolypNarrow-band imagingAdenomatous polypsInternal medicineConfidence intervalColonoscopyRadiologyClinical PracticeGastroenterologyEndoscopyColorectal cancerPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Narrow-band imaging (NBI) allows “in vivo” classification of colorectal polyps. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> We evaluated the optical diagnosis by nonexpert community-based endoscopists in routine clinical practice, the impact of training, and whether the endoscopists could achieve the threshold for the “do not resect” policy. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This was an observational study performed in two periods (P1 and P2). Endoscopists had no prior experience in NBI in P1 and applied the technique on a daily basis for 1 year before participation in P2. Lesions were classified by applying the NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic (NICE) and Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis (WASP) classifications, simultaneously. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 290 polyps were analyzed. The overall accuracy of optical diagnosis was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68–0.81) in P1, with an increase to 0.82 (95% CI 0.73–0.89) in P2 (<i>p</i> = 0.260). The accuracy of the NICE/WASP classifications to differentiate adenomatous from nonadenomatous histology was 0.78 (95% CI 0.72–0.84) in P1 and 0.86 (95% CI 0.77–0.92) in P2 (<i>p</i> = 0.164); assignments made with a high confidence level achieved statistical significance (13% improvement, 95% CI 3–22%; <i>p</i> = 0.022). The negative predictive value for adenomatous histology of diminutive rectosigmoid polyps was 81% (95% CI 64–93%) and 80% (95% CI 59–93%) in P1 and P2, respectively. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Nonexpert endoscopists achieved moderate accuracy for real-time optical diagnosis of colorectal lesions with the NICE/WASP classifications. The overall performance of the endoscopists improved after sustained use of optical diagnosis, but did not achieve the standards for the implementation of the “do not resect” strategy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGE Portuguese Journal of GastroenterologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207