MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Geographic Information System to Determine Quality of Bowel Preparation for a Catchment Area of a Veterans Affairs Healthcare System: A Descriptive Analysis

2015· article· en· W2978219667 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott Lee, Shawn J. Kim, Bryan Nam, Steve Serrao, Gagandeep Gill, Christian Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyVeterans AffairsBowel preparationCatchment areaGeographic information systemHealth careColorectal cancerGeneral surgeryInternal medicineCancerDrainage basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Suboptimal bowel preparation can lead to missed polyps and cancers, incomplete exams, and repeat colonoscopy. Split dosing has improved preparation and adenoma detection, however, suboptimal preparations still continue. Barriers to suboptimal preparation have been evaluated but full understanding is still limited. The purpose of this study was to use the Geographic Information System (GIS) to visually represent the quality of bowel preparation in our hospital catchment area and further investigate barriers to suboptimal preparations. Methods: Retrospective chart review of outpatient colonoscopy reports at the Loma Linda Veterans Affairs Hospital (LLVAH) from March 2010 to March 2011 was analyzed. The Ottawa bowel preparation score was identified for each colonoscopy procedure that utilized a split dose preparation. A graduated code was created and was mapped using the Geographic Information System (GIS) software. A 25 and 40 mile buffer was created away from the LLVAH onto the counties that represent the catchment area. Results: A total of 1054 outpatient colonoscopy reports were evaluated between March 2010 and March 2011. All patients received a split dose preparation, and 50.9% participated in an educational class prior to colonoscopy. The average age was 63.2 years, 91.2% of the patients were male, and average BMI was 30. Significant co-morbidities included but were not restricted to diabetes, 35.2%, prior abdominal surgery, 37.6%, and psychiatric history, 47.2%. Bowel preparation scores were as follows, 17.3% excellent, 56.7% good, 18.7% fair, 5.8% poor, and 0.7% inadequate. GIS mapping revealed suboptimal preparations in areas of lower socioeconomic status around LLVAH. Conclusion: Suboptimal preparation can lead to missed polyps and colorectal cancers. It can also lead to repeat colonoscopy, which could further increase procedural risk to the patient as well as increase cost to both the patient and institution. GIS mapping allowed us to identify areas and populations of suboptimal bowel preparations. A geographical evaluation of high-risk populations of suboptimal preparation may be able to lead to more focused interventions that can lead to improved preparations for colonoscopy.Figure 1

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)0.006
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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