A246 ALBERTA NORTH ZONE ENDOSCOPY QUALITY STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, there are around one million endoscopic procedures being performed annually by gastroenterologists, surgeons, and other physicians. Variability may exist between individual endoscopists’ colonoscopy performance, which may affect future colorectal cancer rates or adverse events. Providing endoscopists with report cards highlighting key performance indicators (KPIs) in colonoscopy has been shown to improve future KPIs. As a result, governing bodies throughout the world (including Canada) recommend all endoscopy programs and endoscopists implement the measuring of the quality of endoscopic services being provided, including recording and reporting on KPIs in colonoscopy. 1. To implement a program that captures quality metrics in colonoscopy in a large geographically diverse and remote health region and across endoscopist specialties. 2. To determine the quality of colonoscopies performed by endoscopists in this region. This is a prospective, multi-centre observational study with real-time electronic data collection in rural and regional hospitals in Northwestern Alberta. Outcomes measured include the quality of bowel preparation; sedation agents used and patient comfort; bowel preparation results; procedure and withdrawal times; the proportion of successful cecal intubations; proportion of patients over 50 years with polyps and the mean number of polyps per colonoscopy; and immediate serious adverse events related to colonoscopy. We plan on reporting individual (anonymized) and group results, with comparisons to current benchmarks in colonoscopy quality. Ten endoscopists, including General Surgeons, Internists and Family Physicians, are currently collecting data at four rural or regional hospitals in Northwestern Alberta. Since data collection commenced, we have data collected on over one thousand colonoscopies. Analysis and reporting of results will be available March 2018. Busy community based endoscopists (and their teams) are willing to collaborate and engage in endoscopy quality programs. Further conclusions will be based on quality metric results. Alberta North Zone Quality Assurance team grant
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".