Safety and effectiveness of balloon cryoablation for treatment of Barrett’s associated neoplasia: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and study aims Balloon cryoablation (BC) is a novel procedure for endoscopic ablation of Barrett’s esophagus (BE- associated neoplasia. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of BC for treatment of BE neoplasia. Patients and methods Several databases were searched for relevant articles (PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EMBASE) as well as abstracts of recent gastroenterology meetings. Data extraction was performed by two investigators using standardized forms, including age, gender, length of BE segment, prior treatments, procedural time and number ablation sessions, technical feasibility, adverse events, and eradication rates of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) and dysplasia (CE-D) at follow-up. Quality of the studies was assessed using a modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Results Seven studies met inclusion criteria for a total of 548 ablation sessions in 272 patients. The most common histopathology reported prior to BC was high-grade dysplasia (n = 131), followed by low-grade dysplasia (n = 75), and intramucosal adenocarcinoma (n = 52). The pooled rate for technical feasibility was 95.8 % (95 % CI: 93.6–97.5 %; I2 = 13.2 %; P = 0.3). Pooled rates of CE-IM and CE-D were 85.8 % (95 % CI: 77.8–92.2 %, I2 = 55.5 %; p = 0.04) and 93.8 % (95 % CI: 85.5–98.7 %, I2 = 74.2 %; P = 0.001), respectively. The overall adverse event (AE) rate was 12.5 % (34 out of 272 patients), of which stricture formation was the most common (5.8 %), followed by mucosal laceration (0.7 %), perforation (0.4 %), and bleeding (0.4 %). All AEs were successfully managed endoscopically. Conclusion This meta-analysis suggests that BC is a safe and effective ablative technique for treatment of BE neoplasia; future prospective comparative trials are needed to corroborate these initial findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".