MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008250116 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.085

A86 SUBMUCOSAL INJECTION FOR POLYPECTOMY AND INTERVENTIONAL ENDOSCOPY: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY

2020· article· en· W3008250116 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ahmed Amine Alaoui, Paola Marques, Roupen Djinbachian, Heiko Pohl, Diogo Libânio, Alan Barkun, Daniel von Renteln

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePolypectomyPerforationEndoscopyEndoscopic mucosal resectionSurgeryColonoscopyInternal medicineColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Submucosal injection (SI) is used for standard polypectomies or during complex endoscopic interventions. SI helps to facilitate endoscopic resection and to prevent complications such as bleeding or perforation. Aims We were interested to evaluate endoscopists practice patterns of using SI during routine standard polypectomy and complex endotherapeutic procedures. Methods An online survey using the Google Form application was distributed through medical societies. Survey domains included training and practice characteristics of participating endoscopists as well as questions regarding the use of SI products for endoscopy procedures. Results A total of 236 endoscopists (mainly from the US, Canada, and Europe) participated in the survey. About half (48%) of endoscopists start using SI for routine polypectomies when polyps are larger than 10 mm, while 37% of endoscopist report having a size threshold larger than 15mm for using SI (22% report using SI starting at >15 mm, and 15% report using SI starting at >20 mm). Only a minority (11%) of endoscopists report using SI for polyps <10 mm and starting SI at 6 mm. However, 30,3% of endoscopists reported that their size threshold for using SI during polypectomies has decreased in recent years. 83% reported that using SI is beneficial for en-bloc resection, avoiding perforation (91,5%), avoiding thermic lesions (80%) and identifying dysplastic tissue (54,5%). Normal saline is the submucosal agent most commonly available for endoscopists (86,4%), followed by Eleview (66,8%), and ORISE Gel (20%). “Short lasting lift” and “cost” are reported concerns when opting for a specific SI solution. Methylene blue is the coloring agent that is most commonly used (68,9%). Excellent submucosal elevation, availability, and length of action are the most important features an SI should have according to endoscopists’ responses. Conclusions The use of SI is common during endoscopy procedures. For standard colorectal polypectomy procedures, most endoscopists start using SI only for polyps larger than 10mm. SI is used by endoscopists to prevent complications, improve endoscopic resection and to identify dysplastic tissue. 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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207