MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920921450 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.029

A30 DEVELOPMENT OF A DEFINITION AND RULES FOR CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION OF POST-COLONOSCOPY BLEEDING (PCB)

2019· article· en· W2920921450 on OpenAlexaff
Courtney Maxwell, Alaa Rostom, Catherine Dubé, Ronald Bridges, Steven J. Heitman, Nauzer Forbes, Robert J. Hilsden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyInter-rater reliabilityMedicineEmergency departmentCohen's kappaEvent (particle physics)Medical emergencySet (abstract data type)StatisticColorectal cancerMedical physicsComputer scienceCancerNursingPsychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PCB is an important colonoscopy quality indicator that is recommended to be routinely collected by colorectal cancer screening programs and endoscopy quality improvement programs. To create a standardized and reliable definition of PCB and set of rules for attributing the relatedness of PCB to a colonoscopy. PCB events were identified from colonoscopies performed at the Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre. The Centre’s QI program reviews all emergency department visits and inpatient stays occuring within 30 days. Existing definitions and relatedness rules for PCB were reviewed by the authors and a draft definition and set of rules was created. Initial testing was performed using a set of 15 bleeding events. Information available for each event included the original endoscopy report and data abstracted from the emergency or inpatient record by a trained research assistant (CMM). The other six authors, all endoscopists, independently reviewed each event to determine if it met the definition of PCB and assessed its relatedness to the colonoscopy. The authors then met to review their ratings and revisions to the definition and rules were made. A validation set of 32 bleeding events were then reviewed to assess their interrater reliability by having three authors complete independent reviews and three authors complete a consensus review. The Kappa statistic was used to measure interrater reliability. PCB was defined as “Patient- or health care provider-reported rectal bleeding (other than blood on the toilet paper) and/or hemoglobin drop >2g within 30 days of procedure resulting in an emergency/urgent care center visit or hospital admission.” The relatedness criteria are shown in the table. The panel classified 28 of 32 events as meeting the definition of PCB and rated 7, 8 and 6 events as definitely, probably and possibly related to the colonoscopy, respectively. The Kappa for the definition of PCB for the three independent reviews was 0.82 (substantial agreement). The Kappa for the attribution of the PCB to the colonoscopy was 0.47 (moderate agreement). When reclassifying events as related or unrelated to the colonoscopy the agreement was higher (0.85). A standardized definition of PCB and attribution rules achieved high interrater reliability and provides a template of required data for event adjudication by QI programs. Attribution Rules HRP: High RIsk Polypectomy: size > 2 cm; 1–2 cm in right colon or pedunculated or antiplatelet/anticoagulant; immediate bleeding 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 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)0.115
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.268
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1150.268
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207