MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920889518 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.238

A239 CLINICAL MANAGEMENT OF COLORECTAL POLYPS: RESULTS OF AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY

2019· article· en· W2920889518 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Willems, Sinan Orkut, Saskia Ditisheim, Mickaël Bouin, B Faulques, Heiko Pohl, Daniel von Renteln

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeneral surgeryInternal medicineGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endoscopic management of colorectal polyps continues to evolve. Alternatives to histopathology assessment for diminutive polyps such as the resect-and-discard strategy have been introduced while polypectomy guidelines have incorporated changes toward using electrocautery free techniques. We conducted an international survey to better understand current uptake and barriers of these polyp management techniques. A survey questionnaire was distributed through endoscopy, gastroenterology and surgical societies worldwide to colonoscopy practitioners. Study domains included physicians practice characteristics, perception of cancer risk in diminutive polyps, utilization and potential concerns with the resect-and-discard strategy, utilized polypectomy techniques and changes in practice patterns in recent years. 808 practitioners participated in the survey. 48.4 % (95% CI 45.0%-51.9%) of participants believe that leaving diminutive polyps in place will increase the cancer risk for patients and 54.7 % (95% CI 53.6%-60.4%) believe that the current CT-colonoscopy practice, which ignores diminutive polyps, are probably or definitely increasing patients risk of cancer. 80.3% (95% CI 77.5%-83.0%) of responders believe that using the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive polyps will not increasing cancer risk, however 84.2% (95% CI 81.6%-86.7%) are presently not using it and 59.9% (95% CI 56.5%-63.2%) do not believe that it is feasible for use in general practice. Potential medico-legal issues and being afraid of giving wrong surveillance intervals based on optical diagnosis were the most common barriers for implementation. In regard to polypectomy techniques, 87.5 % (95% CI 85.2%-89.8%) of responders reported an increased use of cold snare polypectomy in the past 5 years, with 55.3% (95% CI 51.9%- 58.7%) reporting more than a 50% increase. Cold snare polypectomy is the most frequently used resection technique for 4 to 5 mm and 6 to 10 mm polyps: 67.0% (95% CI (63.7%-70.2%) and 55.2% (95% CI 51.8%-58.6%) respectively. The majority of endoscopists has concerns that leaving diminutive polyps unresected is associated with an increased risk of cancer and also believe that the resect-and-discard strategy, in its current form, is not feasible for widespread clinical implementation. With regard to polypectomy techniques, there has been a marked increase in the last 5 years using cold snare polypectomy to resect 4 to 10 mm polyps. Respondents Characteristics Physicians preferred polypectomy technique for various polyp sizes None

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207