MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008083353 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.273

A274 EARLY SINGLE-OPERATOR CHOLANGIOSCOPY ASSISTED ELECTROHYDRAULIC LITHOTRIPSY (SOC-EHL) IN THE MANAGEMENT OF DIFFICULT BILIARY STONES IS COST-EFFECTIVE WHEN COMPARED TO A DELAYED STEP-UP APPROACH TO LATER SOC-EHL

2020· article· en· W3008083353 on OpenAlexaff
Saad Alrajhi, Alan Barkun, V. Adam, Kashi Callichurn, Myriam Martel, M Khashab, Nauzer Forbes, Y Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLithotripsyAdverse effectCommon bile ductBile ductSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Single-operator cholangioscopy assisted electrohydraulic lithotripsy is the standard of care for difficult common bile duct (CBD) stones with failed clearance using standard ERCP. This technology is expensive and optimal timing of its use in terms of cost-effectiveness in the management algorithm of patients with difficult CBD stones remains unclear Aims To determine the cost-effective timing of SOC-EHL utilization in the management of difficult CBD stones Methods A decision model was developed assessing 4 strategies and progressively delayed introduction of SOC-EHL in relation to ERCP over 6-months. Difficult stones were defined as having failed CBD clearance via standard ERCP. Probability estimates for each health state were obtained from a literature systematic review. For each strategy, outpatients undergoing ERCP underwent different timings of SOC-EHL introduction from the first to the fourth ERCP and were followed for subsequent need for re-intervention, adverse events, need for surgery, and/or successful endoscopic CBD clearance. The unit of effectiveness was complete CBD clearance without need for surgery. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed varying all 50 model variables across ranges spanning 30% of their respective values. Costs are in 2018US$ based on US data. Results Performing SOC-EHL immediately during the first ERCP is the least expensive approach when compared to delaying SOC-EHL. This strategy costs $15,528 on average per patient with CBD clearance avoiding surgery and can save between $260 to $720 compared to the 3 other strategies, which introduce SOC-EHL during the second to the fourth ERCP. Effectiveness is clinically comparable between the four strategies ranging from 97–99%. Deterministic sensitivity analysis shows changes in the results when the ERCP complication rate (baseline probability of 6%) decreases to 4.5%, when the SOC-EHL (baseline costs of $2,450) costs more than $2,670, or when the ERCP facility fees (baseline costs of $4,292) are less than $3,425. In all 3 scenarios, delaying the first SOC-EHL use to the fourth procedural attempt becomes the dominant strategy. Variations of the other 47 variables did not alter results. Conclusions Although SOC-EHL is expensive, this analysis demonstrates that among patients who have failed a prior attempt at stone extraction, utilization of SOC-EHL at the next (first subsequent) ERCP is less costly when compared to its delayed introduction. However, postponing the use of SOC-EHL to the fourth ERCP could be identified as the most cost-effective strategy when facility fees or ERCP complications rates are below certain thresholds, or when the costs of SOC-EHL extend beyond a defined threshold. Funding Agencies None

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.011
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207