MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913822845 · doi:10.1055/a-0732-487

Management of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2913822845 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pedro Russo, Sandra Barbeiro, Halim Awadie, Diogo Libânio, Mário Dinis‐Ribeiro, Michael J. Bourke

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy International Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic mucosal resectionPerforationEndoscopic submucosal dissectionMeta-analysisSurgeryResectionIncidence (geometry)Adverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective and study aims To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different endoscopic resection techniques for laterally spreading colorectal tumors (LST). Methods Relevant studies were identified in three electronic databases (PubMed, ISI and Cochrane Central Register). We considered all clinical studies in which colorectal LST were treated with endoscopic resection (endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR] and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) and/or transanal minimally invasive surgery (TEMS). Rates of en-bloc/piecemeal resection, complete endoscopic resection, R0 resection, curative resection, adverse events (AEs) or recurrence, were extracted. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results Forty-nine studies were included. Complete resection was similar between techniques (EMR 99.5 % [95 % CI 98.6 %-100 %] vs. ESD 97.9 % [95 % CI 96.1 – 99.2 %]), being curative in 1685/1895 (13 studies, pooled curative resection 90 %, 95 % CI 86.6 – 92.9 %, I2 = 79 %) with non-significantly higher curative resection rates with ESD (93.6 %, 95 % CI 91.3 – 95.5 %, vs. 84 % 95 % CI 78.1 – 89.3 % with EMR). ESD was also associated with a significantly higher perforation risk (pooled incidence 5.9 %, 95 % CI 4.3 – 7.9 %, vs. EMR 1.2 %, 95 % CI 0.5 – 2.3 %) while bleeding was significantly more frequent with EMR (9.6 %, 95 % CI 6.5 – 13.2 %; vs. ESD 2.8 %, 95 % CI 1.9 – 4.0 %). Procedure-related mortality was 0.1 %. Recurrence occurred in 5.5 %, more often with EMR (12.6 %, 95 % CI 9.1 – 16.6 % vs. ESD 1.1 %, 95 % CI 0.3 – 2.5 %), with most amenable to successful endoscopic treatment (87.7 %, 95 % CI 81.1 – 93.1 %). Surgery was limited to 2.7 % of the lesions, 0.5 % due to AEs. No data of TEMS were available for LST. Conclusions EMR and ESD are both effective and safe and are associated with a very low risk of procedure related mortality.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.024
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations66
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopy International OpenSame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207