MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Endoscopic Ultrasound in Nova Scotia: A Quality Assurance Study

2016· article· en· W2977889043 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adel Alghamdi, Geoff Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic ultrasoundReferralNova scotiaRadiologyFine-needle aspirationLymph nodePancreatitisPancreatic cystPancreatic cancerBiopsyCystGeneral surgerySurgeryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Since the single most important function of EUS is in its ability to obtain tissue via FNA, our primary outcome measure will be yield of FNA for the various indications. Secondary outcome measures will include the indications, complications and waiting time. We also compared the diagnostic yield of FNA with and without having Rapid on-site Evaluation (ROSE). This quality assurance study will help in improving the EUS program in our province. Methods: It is an observational, retrospective cohort study of all the men and women who had undergone EUS in Nova Scotia. Subjects of this research consist of 176 patients. 114 EUS reports, including 52 FNA without ROSE, will be analyzed to determine the reason for referral to EUS, the complications if any, and the waiting time for an EUS appointment in the out patients sittings. Results of EUS with or without FNA will be charted as well as the diagnosis obtained via cytological analysis. Another 60 EUS reports were FNA was taken with ROSE, were analyzed and diagnostic yields were charted and compared with the FNAs without ROSE. Results: The most common reasons for referral to EUS were for evaluation of pancreatic mass/cyst, mediastinal mass/lymph node and assessment of sub-mucosal lesions. Other indications were dilated CBD, pancreatic cancer screening, chronic unexplained pancreatitis. A total of 110 FNA's (52 without ROSE, and 60 with ROSE) were performed by EUS for different indications; most of them were from a pancreatic mass/cyst, Lymph node and submucosal lesions. In the FNAs without ROSE, 86% of results were conclusive, compared to 82% with ROSE. Among the FNA obtained from a solid pancreatic mass, 88% were conclusive without ROSE compared to 86% with ROSE. The most common abnormal FNA results from the pancreas were pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Other results included pancreatic lymphoma, metastatic malignancy from lymph node FNA, and lung cancer. 2 patients (1.7%) developed complications post EUS/FNA. Conclusion: EUS can be used for variety of indications, most commonly to further characterize a pancreatic lesion, with the ability of obtaining a tissue diagnosis through FNA with good diagnostic yield that guided patients management. It is a minimally invasive procedure with low complication rate. In our observational study, ROSE didn't increase the diagnostic yield of FNA, although further studies with RCT needed to establish the efficacy of ROSE in sensitivity and specificity as well.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.340 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→