MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2920923054 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.275

A276 CLINCAL PREDICTORS FOR SESSILE SERRATED ADENOMA DETECTION: AN ANALYSIS OF 17,524 COLONOSCOPIES

2019· article· en· W2920923054 on OpenAlexaffabout
M Gandhi, Sarah Cocco, Charlotte McDonald, Zaid Hindi, Debarati Chakraborty, Karina French, Omar Siddiqi, M Blier, Bharat Markandey, Victoria Siebring, Mayur Brahmania, Nitin Khanna, Vipul Jairath, Brian Yan, Michael Sey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyInternal medicineAdenomaColorectal cancerDemographicsIntubationGastroenterologyBowel preparationProspective cohort studyWithdrawal timeCancerSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adenoma detection and removal is crucial to prevent colon cancer. Although adenoma detection rate is the current benchmark, there is increasing interest in sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (SSADR) given sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs) are more difficult to identify endoscopically. To define predictors of SSA detection in a large colonoscopy cohort. We performed a prospective observational study using colonoscopy quality metrics collected by Cancer Care Ontario. All colonoscopies performed for any indication across 20 hospitals in Southwestern Ontario between April 2017 and February 2018 were identified. Data collected included patient demographics, procedural indication, bowel preparation, cecal intubation, endoscopist information, and histology of polyps removed. Cases without histology records were excluded. A multi-variable analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with SSA detection. In total, 17,524 colonoscopies (mean (SD) age = 59.6 (14.4), 53.9% female) were identified. At least one SSA was identified in 910 procedures, corresponding to a SSADR of 5.2%. On multi-variable analysis, variables independently associated with higher SSADR included increasing patient age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02–1.03, p<0.001), cecal intubation (OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.87–7.71, p<0.001), use of split dose bowel preparation (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00–1.77, p=0.047), and very good bowel preparation quality (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.38–4.44, p=0.002). Factors associated with lower SSADRs included non-screening colonoscopies (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.48–0.63, p<0.001) and non-gastroenterologist endoscopist (general surgery OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41–0.60, p<0.001; internal medicine OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51–0.96, p=0.027; general practice OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06–0.68, p=0.010). Modifiable factors associated with higher SSADRs include use of split dose bowel preparation, better bowel preparation quality, cecal intubation, and specialty of endoscopist. Ongoing initiatives emphasizing the importance of these variables should be encouraged. Clinical Predictors for SSA Detection 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→