Double-Balloon Endoscopy in Crohn Disease: A Tertiary Referral Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crohn disease (CD) affects the small bowel in 80% of patients. Double balloon endoscopy (DBE) provides the potential for direct and extensive mucosal visualization with the potential for diagnostic monitoring and therapeutic intervention. This study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of DBE in small-bowel CD. METHODS: From our DBE database, patients with CD at the time of index DBE (January 2004-January 2013) were identified. Data collection included demographics, CD phenotype (age at diagnosis, disease location, disease activity), procedural information, adverse events (perforation, pancreatitis, death), therapeutic intervention (stricture dilation), and outcome (escalation or maintenance of existing therapy, referral to surgery). RESULTS: A total of 184 DBEs were performed in patients with inflammatory bowel disease over 162 endoscopic sessions. In this cohort, 115 patients had previously diagnosed CD. A diagnosis of CD was made in 22 patients. Of those with known CD, 140 DBEs were performed in 82 patients; DBE findings led to escalation of medical therapy in 26% of patients, maintenance of therapy in 26% of patients, and surgery in 18% of patients. We considered DBE to have failed in 11% (n = 18) of patients. During 46 endoscopic sessions, in 29 patients, 103 strictures were dilated via balloon dilation. Of patients undergoing dilation with clinical follow-up, 19 of 24 (79%) patients were surgery-free during the study period. Overall, there were 2 perforations. CONCLUSIONS: We found that DBE is a safe and effective procedure in patients with suspected or established CD. Furthermore, patients undergoing dilation of strictures via DBE had an 80% surgery-free rate within the follow-up period.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".