MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S0950 A Comparison of Radiation Exposure During ERCP by Different Fluoroscope Techniques

2020· article· en· W3093781977 on OpenAlexaff
Saleh Alghsoon, Khaled S. Shaban, Fares Almashal, Abdulmonem Swied

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFluoroscopyDose area productEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyNuclear medicineRadiation exposureEndoscopyTechnicianRadiation doseRetrospective cohort studyRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an endoscopic procedure performed for multiple diagnostic and therapeutic indications. It carries benefits and risks like all other interventions. We focused on radiation exposure to patients and staff. In the literature review, we found that radiation dose is lower when radiation administration is physician-controlled, and as the physician becomes more experienced, they utilize less radiation. The aim was to compare different operation techniques of radiation administration during ERCP. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all 437 ERCP procedures performed at a tertiary care hospital between April 2015 and April 2017. Data were collected from the hospital electronic system and included demographics, procedure indication, fluoroscopy time (FT), dose area product (DAP), degree of difficulty as per American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommendations. Median and mean FT and DAP between endoscopist- controlled (EC) compared to technician-controlled (TC). RESULTS: Of the 437 cases analyzed 45.5%males, and the mean age was 56.7. EC was 187 cases, representing 42.79%. The mean fluoroscopy time (FT) was 2.107 ± 2.0 minutes. The mean dose–area product (DAP) was 15227.371 ± 16784.738 Gy·cm2 for all procedures. The degree of ERCP difficulty was graded from 1-4 as per ASGE. Level I TC procedures had a mean FT and DAP of 1.600 minutes and 12644.72 Gy·cm2, respectively; level I EC procedures were1.514 minutes and 12966.71 Gy·cm2, respectively. For level IV, TC procedures the mean FT, 2.539 minutes, and the mean DAP was 19469.94 Gy·cm2. For level IV EC procedures, the mean FT was 4.890 minutes; the mean DAP was 37921.00 Gy·cm2. CONCLUSION: This study did not show a significant difference in radiation dose between EC and TC except in ASGE level IV, where a significant increase noticed in the EC group. The results of multiple other fluoroscopic studies in urology and cardiology showed that when the procedure is physician-controlled, radiation administered is similar or lower than TC. This difference in comparison to the other studies could be attributed to the endoscopist attention divided into multiple fronts, including doing the procedure that predisposes them to push on the pedal for longer than intended while manipulating the scope and leading the team. Although these results are inconclusive, it does shed light on the importance of further studies on radiation administration techniques for patients and staff safety.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207