MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007432213 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.078

A79 CLINICAL VALIDATION OF THE SIMPLE CLASSIFICATION FOR OPTICAL DIAGNOSIS OF DIMINUTIVE AND SMALL COLORECTAL POLYPS

2020· article· en· W3007432213 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Amine Alaoui, Kussil Oumedjbeur, Roupen Djinbachian, Étienne Marchand, Paola Marques, Célia Hammar, Heiko Pohl, Mickaël Bouin, Érik Deslandres, Simon Bouchard, Daniel von Renteln

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyHistopathologyEndoscopyDiminutiveProspective cohort studyAdenomatous polypsInternal medicineAdenomaColorectal PolypRadiologyGastroenterologyColorectal cancerPathologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Image enhanced endoscopy (IEE) allows for real-time optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps in order to replace histopathology. A novel classification system (SIMPLE classification) has recently been developed for optical diagnosis when using the novel Pentax Optivista IEE platform. Aims The aim of this study was to evaluate the SIMPLE classification for optical polyp diagnosis in a prospective clinical study. Methods Patients undergoing screening, diagnostic or surveillance colonoscopies were enrolled in the study. All colorectal polyps 1-10mm found underwent optical polyp diagnosis using the SIMPLE classification with either iScan or Optivista for image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE). Polyps were resected as per standard care and sent for histopathology analysis. Optical diagnosis and surveillance intervals were calculated based on SIMPLE criteria and compared to pathology-based results as reference. Primary outcome was the agreement of the surveillance intervals based on the SIMPLE classification with pathology-based surveillance intervals for 1-5mm colorectal polyps. Secondary outcomes included negative predictive value (NPV) for rectosigmoid adenoma, percentage of pathology avoided, percentage of post-colonoscopy immediate recommendations, and surveillance interval agreement, rectosigmoid NPV for 1-10mm polyps. Results 399 patients (mean age: 62.4, 55.6% female) with 278 diminutive and 364 small polyps were evaluated in the study cohort. For ≤5mm polyps, agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals was 93.5% [95% CI 91.1–95.9] (shorter: 4.5% [95% CI 2.5–6.5]; longer: 1.8% [95% CI 0.5–3.0]). NPV for rectosigmoid adenomatous polyps (including SSA) was 85.5% [95% CI 77.6–93.4]. Using Optical diagnosis and the SIMPLE classification, pathology analysis could be avoided in 61.5% [95% CI 56.9–66.2] of polyps and post-colonoscopy immediate surveillance interval recommendation could be given in 70.9% [95% CI 66.5–75.4] of patients. For ≤10mm polyps, agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals was 92.2% [95% CI 89.6–94.9] (shorter: 5.5% [95% CI 3.3–7.8]; longer: 2.3% [95% CI 0.8–3.7]). NPV for rectosigmoid adenomatous polyps (including SSA) was 83.7% [95% CI 75.9–91.5]. Conclusions The first clinical validation study using the SIMPLE classification in combination with Optivista or iScan IEE showed a high (≥90%) surveillance interval agreement compared to pathology. More than 60% of pathology could be avoided, and most patients could be given immediate surveillance intervals when using IEE in combination with the SIMPLE classification. Funding Agencies NonePentax

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207