MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Validation of the Montreal Bowel Preparation Scale: An Auditable Application of the MSTF Guidelines

2016· article· en· W2977858477 on OpenAlexaffabout
Valérie Heron, Myriam Martel, Talat Bessissow, Yen‐I Chen, Étienne Désilets, Catherine Dubé, Yidan Lu, Charles Ménard, Julia McNabb‐Baltar, Robin Parmar, Alaa Rostom, Alan Barkun

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyCatharticScale (ratio)Bowel preparationPhysical therapyInternal medicineColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Existing bowel preparation scales (BPS) are limited in their ability to predict interval to next colonoscopy. The US Multi-society task force (MSTF) recommends that screening or surveillance colonoscopies be repeated within the year if the preparation does not allow for detection of polyps greater than 5mm in size. We assessed the reliability and validity of a new BPS - the Montreal BPS (MBPS) - in comparison with the Boston BPS (BBPS). Methods: We developed the 5mm MBPS: score = 1 - preparation being adequate to detect lesions ≥5mm on combination of insertion and withdrawal after washing; score = 0 - preparation being inadequate to detect lesions ≥5mm; and U - being unable to complete the colonoscopy for reasons other than the preparation. In an exploratory analysis, we also applied the same definition using a cut-off of 3mm (3mm MBPS). We retained two possible definitions of adequate BBPS scores based on published studies: total score ≥5 (BBPS 5) or each segment score ≥2 with a total score ≥6 (BBPS 2-6). Video recordings of 83 colonoscopies were independently evaluated by nine physicians (seven staff gastroenterologists and two senior gastroenterology fellows) using the BBPS, 5mm MBPS and 3mm MBPS. Eight of these videos were evaluated twice, one year apart, to assess intra-rater agreement. Weighted kappas quantified intra- and inter-rater agreements. Associations between scores and clinical outcomes were assessed. Results: 72.3% of colonoscopies were performed for screening or surveillance. Inter- and intra-rater agreements for each scale are shown in Table 1. Associations between scores and clinical outcomes are shown in Table 2. Though arithmetic trends were noted, associations for these clinical outcomes lacked statistical significance.Table 1: Inter- and intra-rater agreementTable 2: Association between scores and clinical outcomesConclusion: For all scales, intra-rater agreement was superior to inter-rater agreement. Inter-rater agreements were lower than expected with at best moderate agreement. This may reflect the dichotomized interpretation of the scales (adequate vs inadequate) contrary to previous studies which compared scores assessed as continuous variables. The MBPS appears promising but further studies are required to assess how to best operationalize the US MSTF recommendations for interval to the next colonoscopy based on bowel cleanliness.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→