MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3008894596 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.136

A137 COLONOSCOPY RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS IN A POPULATION-BASED COLON SCREENING PROGRAM

2020· article· en· W3008894596 on OpenAlexaff
Marcel Tomaszewski, David S. Sanders, Robert Enns, Laura Gentile, Carla Nash, Stuart Cowie, Denis Petrunia, Paul D. Mullins, Nazanin Azari-Razm, Д А Быков, Jennifer J. Telford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyMedicineAdverse effectPerforationPopulationVeterans AffairsRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineGeneral surgeryEmergency medicineSurgeryColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The British Columbia Colon Screening Program (BCCSP) is a population-based program enrolling 50–74 year old individuals for biennial FIT (OC-Sensor, cut-off 10 mcg/g) with follow-up colonoscopy for positive FIT. The neoplasia detection rate is 50–55% and over 75% of colonoscopies have a specimen taken. Previously reported colonoscopy adverse event rates for FIT based screening programs vary widely: 0.03–6.2% and 0–2.7% for bleeding and perforation, respectively. Mortality as a result of colonoscopy is rare but has been reported in 0.0004%-0.0074% of colonoscopies. The rate of colonoscopy related adverse events in BCCSP participants is unknown. Aims To determine the rate of colonoscopy related serious adverse events within the BCCSP. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of all participants undergoing colonoscopy in BCCSP from November 15, 2013 to December 31, 2017. BCCSP contacts screening participants by phone 14 days post colonoscopy to determine unplanned medical visits the day prior (during bowel preparation) or following the colonoscopy. Unplanned events underwent chart review if the event was a perforation, cardiovascular or respiratory event, or resulted in death, hospitalization, or significant intervention including repeat colonoscopy, interventional radiology, surgery, blood transfusion, cardioversion, casting of a fracture or suturing of a laceration. Chart review was conducted by a Colonoscopy Lead and reviewed by BCCSP Quality Committee. Unplanned events were defined as serious adverse events (SAE) if they resulted in death, hospitalization or significant intervention and further classified as probably, possibly, or unlikely related to the colonoscopy. Results A total of 108,004 colonoscopies were performed. Unplanned events were reported in 1753 participants, of which 586 met criteria for review. Of these, 578 were confirmed unplanned events and 409 were SAEs of which 367 (89.7%) were probably, 22 (5.4%) possibly and 20 (4.9%) unlikely associated with colonoscopy. 36/10,000 colonoscopies were associated with a SAE that was probably or possibly related: perforation in 5/10,000, bleeding 22/10,000. Three deaths occurred in the 14 days following colonoscopy that were probably (2 perforations) or possibly related to the colonoscopy (0.3/10,000). Conclusions The BCCSP has a colonoscopy SAE rate in keeping with previous publications, particularly in the context of a very high proportion of procedures associated with polypectomy, a known risk factor for perforation and bleeding. This study will help inform screening participants about the risks of colonoscopy in the BC program. Future studies are required to confirm these rates using hospital admission data. 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)0.004
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→