MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135304926 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab002.137

A139 IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY FOR BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS AND EARLY ESOPHAGEAL CANCER IN SOUTHERN ALBERTA

2021· article· en· W3135304926 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thurarshen Jeyalingam, Matthew Woo, Stephen E. Congly, Joel David, Paul J. Belletrutti, M Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBarrett's esophagusQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineDysplasiaIntestinal metaplasiaGERDEsophageal cancerEsophagusEsophageal adenocarcinomaCancerAdenocarcinomaGastroenterologyDiseaseReflux

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE), endoscopic therapy reduces the risk of progression to invasive esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Data on the impact of endoscopic therapy on patient quality of life (QoL) is limited. Aims We aimed to assess: (1) change in QoL during the course of endoscopic therapy for BE, (2) factors which predict this change, (3) whether achieving complete remission of dysplasia (CRD) or intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) affect the degree of change. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study using a prospectively maintained database of BE patients treated in Calgary, Alberta from 2013–2020 containing data on demographics, BE disease characteristics and therapeutics, QoL, and follow-up. QoL was determined prior to initiation of therapy and after each treatment session using a validated questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were calculated and change in QoL was compared using a Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Backwards multiple linear regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of change in QoL. Results Of 130 BE patients, 112 (86.1%) were male and 104 (80%) had dysplastic histology or intramucosal carcinoma on index endoscopy. Mean (SD) age was 65.6 (12.0) years. At time of analysis, 76 patients (58.5%) had completed endoscopic therapy, of whom 69 (90.8%) achieved CRIM; 54 patients (41.5%) were still undergoing treatment. There was significant improvement in all QoL measures during the treatment course except for “depression” (Table 1). Patients with CRIM or CRD had reductions in “sleep difficulty” and “negative impact on life” to a significantly greater degree vs patients not achieving CRIM (Δ sleep -0.45 vs 0.0, P=0.002; Δ negative impact -0.4 vs -0.05, P=0.014) or CRD (Δ sleep -0.40 vs +0.60, P=0.002; Δ negative impact -0.40 vs +0.20, P=0.04). Multiple linear regression revealed older age (B=-0.03, P=0.008) and fewer number of EMR sessions (B=0.254, P=0.008) were correlated with greater improvement in QoL. Conclusions Endoscopic therapy improves QoL in BE patients, especially in those achieving CRIM/CRD. Older age and fewer EMRs are correlated with greater improvement in QoL. These results further reinforce the role of endoscopic therapy as the first line treatment of BE and early EAC. 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207