MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133501000 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab002.013

A14 WIDE VARIATION IN CLINICAL MANAGEMENT OF PAEDIATRIC EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS: A CANADIAN EXPERIENCE.

2021· article· en· W3133501000 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karin Bortolin, Dhandapani Ashok, Vishal Avinashi, Janice Barkey, David Burnett, Jeffrey Critch, Éric Drouin, Jennifer Griffin, H.T. Huynh, P Marcon, Antonio Bascones Martínez, Rabindranath Persad, Mary Sherlock, Chris C. M. Waterhouse, Jessie M. Hulst

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Esophagitis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMcMaster Children's HospitalAlberta Health ServicesCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of CalgaryChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioDalhousie UniversityBC Children's HospitalWestern UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEosinophilic esophagitisMedicineInternal medicineEsophagitisEndoscopyClinical PracticeMaintenance therapyGastroenterologyPediatricsDiseaseRefluxPhysical therapyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic disorder treated by food elimination diet (FED), topical steroids and/or proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). Serial endoscopies and biopsies assess response to therapy. EoE management has evolved as guidelines are updated. Aims To identify practice variation among Canadian paediatric gastroenterologists (PG) who care for children with EoE. Methods An online survey using REDCap about decision-making in children with EoE was distributed to PG in Canada in November 2020. Results 62 PG completed the survey (response rate 69%, 62/94). The majority work in academic centres (92%). 3 centers indicated an accrual of >50 new patients per year; 9/16 centres have >100 patients in follow-up. An EoE Clinic is present in 5 centres. Diagnosis: Familiarity with the 2018 AGREE and 2020 AGA EoE guidelines was found to be 57% and 67% respectively. Criteria required to diagnose EoE according to current guidelines were correctly indicated by 42% of PG. (Figure 1). Endoscopy: The majority of PG (95%) adhere to guidelines in terms of required number and location of biopsies for the initial diagnosis. Ideal timing of repeat endoscopy after change in therapy in patients who are not in histological remission was 8–12 weeks by 67% of PG, timing in stable patients on maintenance therapy varied (33% only if patient is symptomatic). 25% used the EREFS Score in reporting endoscopic findings. Therapy: Improvement of symptoms was the highest ranked goal (64%), followed by remission of histologic findings (30%). A treatment algorithm was in place in 4 centers. The majority routinely assess adherence to therapy (73%) and consult a dietitian for FED (77%). Most (87%) do not consult an allergist for initial management. Preferred choices of 1st-line therapy varied among PG (Figure 2). When FED was selected, 32% of PG started with 1 food, 32% started with 2 foods, most frequently excluding dairy, followed by wheat. 14 (26%) start with ≥6 FED. Prescription of budesonide slurry was consistent among PG with doses of 1 and 2 mg/day in children <10 and >10 years, respectively. Conclusions The is the first Canadian study to assess the variation in management of children with EoE by PG. Overall, PG demonstrated good adherence to the guidelines in terms of initial diagnosis, but differences in maintenance therapy choice and timing of endoscopies. The results highlight a need for standardized management algorithms to deliver uniform care to this growing group. Grounding these guidelines in evidence will warrant a significant investment in further paediatric EoE research. Funding Agencies None

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicEosinophilic EsophagitisFrench-language works237,207