MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200214223 · doi:10.2196/31003

Buccal Mucosal Grafts as a Novel Treatment for the Repair of Rectovaginal Fistulas: Protocol for an Upcoming Prospective Single-Surgeon Case Series

2021· article· en· W3200214223 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Caitlin Cahill, N. Krüger, J. Heine

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyRectovaginal fistulaSurgeryGeneral surgeryRectum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rectovaginal fistulas (RVFs) are abnormal communications between the rectum/anus and the vagina. They are most frequently formed a result of obstetric injury and have deleterious effects on patients' quality of life. Despite several treatment modalities, RVFs remain difficult problems to manage, and many patients fail multiple attempts at surgical repair. Buccal mucosal grafts (BMGs) may be a solution to this problem. A BMG is an oral mucosal tissue harvested from the inner cheek. There are 2 case reports that describe the successful use of BMGs in the repair of RVFs. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to validate these findings with a prospective case series while also addressing the key issues of indication, technical details, procedure safety, and short-term outcomes. METHODS: A prospective single-surgeon case series will be undertaken at a university-affiliated academic tertiary care hospital in Calgary, Alberta (Canada). The estimated recruitment is between 3 and 5 patients. Patients will undergo surgical repair of their RVFs with an autologous BMG. Data on patient characteristics, fistula characteristics, and surgical variables will be collected and analyzed prospectively. The primary outcome is fistula closure. This study has been approved by the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary (REB20-1123). RESULTS: Two previous case reports have described the successful use of BMGs in the repair of RVFs. We have received ethics approval to attempt to validate these findings through a prospective case series. CONCLUSIONS: RVFs cause significant patient morbidity and are difficult problems to manage. Bolstered by the successful use of BMGs in urologic surgery and the previously published case reports demonstrating success in RVFs, we believe that BMGs may be a solution to RVFs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/31003.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.375
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicAnorectal Disease Treatments and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207