MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921315994 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.006

A7 THE POLYP-BASED RESECT-AND-DISCARD STRATEGY

2019· article· en· W2921315994 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Duong, Mickaël Bouin, R Leduc, Érik Deslandres, Annie Deshêtres, Alexander Mark Weber, Heiko Pohl, Alan Barkun, Daniel von Renteln

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General HospitalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePolypectomyGuidelineInterval (graph theory)ColonoscopyConfidence intervalColorectal PolypRadiologyEndoscopyGeneral surgeryInternal medicinePathologyColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current clinical practice assigns post-polypectomy surveillance intervals based on the number, size and histological aspects of polyps. Our goal was to test a novel polyp-based resect and discard model that assigns surveillance intervals for small polyps based only on size and number of polyps. A post hoc analysis was performed on patients enrolled in a prospective colonoscopy trial. We created a model for polyp-based surveillance interval allocation based on clinical experience for what the most likely pathology-based surveillance interval would be for certain scenarios. The primary outcome was the surveillance interval agreement of the polyp-based resect and discard strategy compared to histopathology and USMSTF based surveillance intervals. Secondary outcomes were the overall reduction in required pathology exams and the number of surveillance intervals that can be provided immediately to patients before leaving the endoscopy unit. In addition, we conducted a medical chart review to assess current clinical practise of surveillance interval guideline adherence at our institution. 457 patients (mean age 62.7, 49.4% female, 514 small polyps, 430 diminutive polyps) were enrolled in the study. When using the polyp-based resect and discard model, the assigned surveillance intervals were correct for 89,3% (95% CI: 0.86–92) of patients when compared to pathology-based surveillance interval assignment. When using the polyp-based model, 88,8% of patients can be provided with immediate surveillance interval recommendations compared to 47,7% when using the pathology-based surveillance interval allocation. When using the polyp-based model, 61.4% of pathology examinations can be omitted. Medical chart review showed that at our institution 43.8% of patients received a correct surveillance interval recommendation. The polyp-based resect and discard model reaches an almost 90% agreement compared to pathology-based surveillance interval allocation recommendations. This alternative model reduces the need for pathology examinations, increases the amount of patients that can be provided with immediate surveillance interval recommendations and has the potential to reduce colonoscopy-associated costs. Clinical adherence to pathology results and guideline recommendations was found to be low, but in the range of what has been previously reported in the literature. Polyp-based resect and discard model 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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