MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S1028 Validating a Patient Risk Assessment Tool to Predict Post-ERCP Pancreatitis and Assist Prophylactic Treatment Planning

2021· article· en· W3208451708 on OpenAlexaff
R A MacMillan, Terry Ponich

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePancreatitisRisk assessmentSurgeryGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a complication of ERCPs leading to significant patient morbidity and mortality. ASGE/ESGE guidelines recommend pancreatic duct stent placement, rectal indomethacin (IND), and/or fluid hydration with lactated Ringer’s (RL) or normal saline (NS) to prevent PEP. Recommendations regarding which treatment to use are often based on a patient’s PEP risk level and relevant comorbidities. To our knowledge, there is no objective calculator to aid in predicting PEP risk level for patients undergoing ERCP. Methods: Retrospective chart reviews of ERCP patients were completed within a single clinician’s practice at London Health Sciences Centre between 2016-2019. We developed a patient PEP risk screening tool based on ASGE/ESGE guidelines (Table 1) and analyzed its accuracy in predicting PEP in our practice. We then assessed the PEP rate for different PEP prophylactic treatments and determined whether these treatments were given according to the patient’s PEP risk level. Results: Five hundred sixty-one ERCP patients were assessed using the PEP risk screening tool with 6.6% (37/561) developing post-ERCP pancreatitis. A cut-off score totalling 1 for our tool was chosen to identify high PEP risk patients due to its high sensitivity and moderate specificity. Using the screening tool, 79.5% (446/561) were identified as high PEP risk. Patients receiving ERCP identified as high PEP risk by our tool were roughly 4 times more likely to go on to develop PEP (OR 4.81, [CI] 1.14-20.31). PEP rates were highest in patients who received pancreatic stenting (16.7%) or IND (8.8%) +/- RL (11.2%). Using the risk screening tool, all patients receiving pancreatic stenting were deemed high PEP risk and high PEP risk patients were roughly twice as likely to receive IND (OR 2.09, [CI] 1.36-3.21) compared to low PEP risk patients. Conclusion: Overall, our PEP risk screening tool was very sensitive at identifying patients who were likely to develop PEP. Patients with a higher risk level received more extensive prophylactic treatments as expected. The observed elevated post-ERCP pancreatitis rates in patients receiving these treatments might be partially explained by the higher average PEP risk level in these patients. We hope, high-risk patient identification can be improved prior to ERCP, to provide more objective risk level stratification to better assess PEP prophylactic treatment efficacy moving forward.Table 1.: Post-ERCP Pancreatitis (PEP) Risk Screening Tool Based on ASGE and ESGE Guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207