IS ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION STILL LIMITED TO FEW TERTIARY CENTERS IN THE WEST? RESULTS FROM A NATIONAL SURVEY IN BRAZIL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc excision of superficial neoplasms. Although ESD is widely practiced in Eastern countries like Japan, South Korea and China, its use in the West is supposed to be still limited to few tertiary centers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the clinical practice of ESD in Brazil by means of an electronic questionnaire elaborated by the Brazilian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SOBED). METHODS: In October 2019, 3512 endoscopist members of SOBED were invited to respond to an electronic survey containing 40 questions divided into four topics: operator profile; clinical experience with ESD; adverse events and training. Informed consent was requested to all participants. The investigators reviewed all responses and considered valid if more than 50% of the questions were answered and additional information, when requested, was provided. RESULTS: A total of 155 (4.4%) qualified responses entered the study. ESD has been practiced in 22 of 26 Federation States and majority of respondents (32.2%) have 10 to 20 years of practice. ESD has been performed more frequently in private hospitals (101 individuals, 66.9%) and private ambulatory centers (41 individuals, 27.1%). ESD was performed mainly in the stomach (72%), followed by the rectum (57%) and 80% of the individuals reported less than 25 operations. Twenty-four (15.4 %) individuals reported perforation and 4 (2.5%) of them reported postoperative deaths. Approximately a quarter of responders denied hands-on training in models or visit to training centers. CONCLUSION: ESD appears to be practiced throughout the country, not only in tertiary or academic institutions and mainly in private practice. Most operators received limited training and still are at the beginning of their learning curve. The reported adverse events and mortality rates appear to be higher than Eastern 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".