MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Capsule Endoscopy and Small Intestine Ulceration: What Exactly Does It Mean?

2011· article· en· W2977587588 on OpenAlexaff
Iman Hemmati, Sigrid Svarta, Robert Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCapsule endoscopyGastroenterologyEtiologyInternal medicineDuodenumInflammatory bowel diseaseAnemiaAbdominal painDiarrheaIron-deficiency anemiaDiseaseGastrointestinal bleedingDifferential diagnosisGold standard (test)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Small bowel capsule endoscopy (CE) is the gold standard for non invasively assessing the small intestinal mucosa. Not infrequently, however, findings such as ulceration is noted where the differential diagnosis may be wide and the findings non-specific. In this study we review our experience in patients with small bowel ulceration on their CE in an effort to better determine the etiology and management strategies. Methods: Of 1050 total capsules performed between 10/01-04/11, 111 patients (mean follow up 39 months) were deteremined to have single or multiple small bowel ulceration. Only those patients with the specific finding of small bowel ulceration were selected for further analysis. Their history, findings and outcomes in regards to these ‘ulcerations' were then assessed. Results: 111 patients (61 male, 52 +/- 19 years old) subsequently found to have small bowel ulceration on CE were determined to have been referred for the following indications: obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (58%), abdominal pain (12%), iron deficiency anemia (11%), abnormal radiological findings (4.5%), diarrhea (4.5%), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (1%), and “other” indications (9%). Of the 111 patients with ulcerative disease noted on capsule study, 66 (59%) were thought to be related to IBD, 10 (9 %) related to NSAIDs, 3 (3%) celiac disease, 5 (4%) ischemic, 4 (4%) vascular lesions and 3 (3%) were related to malignant lesions. Peptic ulcer disease in distal duodenum was found in 3 (3%) of cases. In 17 (15%) of the cases there was no specific diagnosis made based on the capsule findings and follow up. Ancillary findings included active bleeding (14%), angiodysplasias (9%), strictures (5%) and diverticula (2%). Capsule retention occurred in 2 cases and was managed by surgery. Follow up (mean 39 months) was performed to ensure long term accuracy of diagnosis. Conclusion: In our patient population undergoing CE the most common cause of small bowel ulceration was IBD followed by NSAIDs use. When small bowel ulceration is seen and the etiology is unclear, a careful history can elucidate the most likely etiology and subsequently guide further management. A significant portion of these patients (15%) seem to do well despite these ulcerations and have no specific diagnosis. Disclosure: Dr. Robert Enns: Speaker/Consultant- AstraZeneca, Merck, Nycomed, Abbott, Olympus.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207