Compatibility of endoclips in the gastrointestinal tract with magnetic resonance imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There are no clear guidelines on the compatibility between endoclips that remain in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of 3T (T) MRI on endoclips placed in excised pig tissues. Two types of endoclips were assessed: Olympus EZ (HX-610-135L) and QuickClip Pro (HZ-202LR). We assessed tissue damage or perforation and detachment of endoclips under 3T MRI magnetic field. We also evaluated the magnitude of force required to detach the endoclips from the porcine tissue. We measured the magnetic force acting on the Olympus EZ clips. QuickClip Pro clips were used as a control in this study. There was no tissue damage and no detachment of the endoclips (Olympus EZ and QuickClip Pro) during 3T MRI. The force required to detach the Olympus EZ clips ranged from 0.9 to 3.0 N. The translational magnetic force acting on the endoclips was 3.18 × 10–3 N. Ex vivo experiments showed that the magnetic field generated by 3T MRI did not cause tissue damage or perforation and did not detach the endoclips. Olympus EZ clips and QuickClip Pro clips in the GI tract appear to be safe during 3T MRI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".