MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Unsedated Peroral Thin Scope Endoscopy for Screening of Esophageal Varices in Endoscopy-Naïve Child-Pugh A Cirrhotics

2014· article· en· W2979215890 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew N. Flynn, Stephen E. Congly, Robert P. Myers, Kelly W. Burak, Alexander I. Aspinall, Jack Pang, Samuel Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsophagogastroduodenoscopyInternal medicineEsophageal varicesGastroenterologyTransient elastographyVaricesGastric varicesCirrhosisEndoscopyPortal hypertensive gastropathyTolerabilityOutpatient clinicPortal hypertensionAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Bleeding esophageal varices cause significant morbidity and mortality in patients with cirrhosis. While various non-invasive strategies for variceal screening have been proposed, current guidelines recommend conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The drawbacks of this approach include cost and risk of adverse events. Therefore, we propose the use of unsedated peroral thin scope endoscopy (TSE) as an alternative, minimally-invasive strategy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the 168 endoscopy-naïve patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who underwent TSE for variceal screening at the University of Calgary outpatient liver clinic between September 2011 and July 2013. Baseline characteristics collected included diagnosis, age, sex, AST, platelet count, spleen size, and liver stiffness by transient elastography (FibroScan®). The MELD score, platelet count to spleen ratio (PSR), AST to platelet ratio index (APRI), and liver stiffness-spleen diameter to platelet ratio score (LSPS) were calculated for each patient. The tolerability of TSE was recorded. Findings of TSE, including the presence and size of varices, and the presence of non-variceal phenomena, were documented. Results: TSE was well-tolerated in 94% of cases, and no adverse events were reported. The rates of no, small, and medium/large esophageal varices were 72.0%, 17.9%, and 10.1%, respectively. Medium/large varices with high-risk stigmata were seen in 1.8% of patients screened. Portal hypertensive gastropathy was seen in 36.3% of patients. Gastric or duodenal ulcers were seen in 13.7% of patients, but none warranted intervention. Patients with varices did not have higher MELD scores than those with no varices (p=0.48). LSPS was the single best noninvasive predictor of patients with medium/large esophageal varices (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.93; p<0.001). Conclusion: TSE for the screening of esophageal varices in endoscopy-naïve patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis is safe and well tolerated. Varices were found in 28% of patients, but most did not require further endoscopic intervention. In-hospital sedated EGD was avoided in 88% of patients screened. LSPS may be able to descriminate between patients suitable for TSE, and those who should proceed directly to EGD.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicLiver Disease and Transplantation→French-language works237,207→