From Endoscopic Detorsion to Sigmoid Colectomy—The Art of Managing Patients with Sigmoid Volvulus: A Survey of the Members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study queried American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons members for management of sigmoid volvulus and aimed to determine whether surgeon experience impacts decision-making. American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons members received a 16-item survey in March, 2017. Items included endoscopic detorsion technique and colonic decompression, preoperative dietary considerations, surgical approach, and respondents’ demographics. Respondents were separated into low experience (LE; ≤10 years in practice) and high experience (HE; >10 years in practice). Of 1996 survey recipients, 10 per cent (197) responded; 124 were HE and 73 were LE. Most were fellowship-trained (93.8%) and primarily in colorectal surgery practice (74.6%), however only 27.4 per cent managed >20 sigmoid volvulus cases as attendings. Fifty-two per cent use rectal tubes for continued colonic decompression after successful endoscopic detorsion; 81.2 per cent would perform sigmoid colectomy on the index admission after successful detorsion, but within a variable timeframe (one to seven days postdetorsion) and with variable dietary restrictions in the interval period; 49.7 per cent would perform a laparoscopic colectomy and 68.3 per cent would perform a stapled colorectal anastomosis. LE surgeons reported a higher proportion of gastrointestinal-performed endoscopic detorsions (P = 0.015), were more likely allow regular diet in the interval period (P = 0.031), and were more inclined to use laparoscopy (P = 0.008), versus HE surgeons. There remains controversy among many of the components in the management of sigmoid volvulus after successful endoscopic detorsion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".