MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S1290 Quality of Capsule Endoscopy Reporting in Patients Referred for Double Balloon Enteroscopy

2020· article· en· W3093832765 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joshua Lee, Jonathan Reichstein, Iris Vance, Daniel Wild

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineDouble-balloon enteroscopyCapsule endoscopyEnteroscopyPrivate practiceObscure gastrointestinal bleedingMedical recordRetrospective cohort studyGeneral surgeryFamily medicineEndoscopySurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Abnormal video capsule endoscopy (VCE) findings often require subsequent intervention with double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE). Accurate VCE reporting is important for procedural planning. In 2017 the AGA published a guideline that included recommended elements for VCE reporting. This study examines adherence to this guideline. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in which the medical records of all patients who underwent DBE at a single tertiary academic center between 02/01/18-07/01/19 were reviewed to identify the VCE report that prompted DBE. Data were collected on the presence of each reporting element recommended by the AGA and differences in reporting between academic and private practices were compared. RESULTS: 129 VCE reports were available for review (84 private practice and 45 academic practice). Reports consistently included indication, date, capsule endoscopist, findings, diagnosis, and management recommendations. Timing of anatomic landmarks and abnormalities were included in only 87.6% of reports and prep quality in only 26.2%. Reports from private practice groups were significantly more likely to include the type of capsule (P < 0.001). VCE reports from academic settings were more likely to include adverse outcomes (P < 0.001), pertinent negatives (P = 0.0015), extent of exam (P = 0.009), previous investigations (P = 0.045), medications (P < 0.001), and document communication to patient/referring physician (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most VCE reports in both private and academic settings include the important elements recommended by the AGA; however only 87% list the times of landmarks and abnormal findings which are crucial in determining the type and direction of approach for subsequent interventions. The extent of the exam and prep quality was also often absent from VCE reports. Further studies can be done to determine whether the quality of VCE reporting influences the outcome of subsequent DBE.Table 1.: Report variables based on Canadian consensus guidelines of endoscopy reporting as adapted by the AGA (2017)Table 2.: Presence of Report Variables Among VCE Reports

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainReporting
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 topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207