A80 CANADIAN NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY NETWORK (CNN) SURVEY ON PH/MOTILITY TESTING IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Anecdotal reports suggest that access to pH/motility testing is problematic in Canada, but to date there is little data documenting this. Aims To assess the volume and accessibility of motility lab testing in Canada. Methods The CNN developed a questionnaire directed at the scope, volume and accessibility of pH/motility testing in Canadian labs. Fifty-three labs were identified using lists provided by companies that supply pH/motility recording equipment in Canada. Of these, 12 labs were excluded (10 had incorrect or absent contact information, 1 had recently closed and 1 had just opened). Questionnaires were sent in early 2020 to the remaining 41 labs, and respondents were asked to use data from their last fiscal year pre-pandemic. Results 26 completed questionnaires were returned (i.e., 63% response rate, but representing ~ 51% of active labs): 23 adult units (7 community, 15 academic and 1 private) and 3 academic pediatric units. Of the adult units, 6 performed studies in children <12 yrs old. All 3 pediatric units provided both esophageal and anorectal high-resolution manometry (HRM) and pH/Impedance recording, with wait times of < 3 months. All 23 adult labs provided esophageal HRM, but just 50% performed anorectal manometry and only 3 anorectal manometry with biofeedback. Ambulatory pH/Impedance was performed in all but 1 adult unit. 15 of 23 adult centres reported access to colon transit studies and only one performed colonic manometry. No units performed antroduodenal manometry. Five units offered Bravo wireless pH recording and 4 performed ENDOFLIP. In adult units, the median number of procedures per year were as follows: esophageal HRMs - 278 (range: 50–1140); pH/impedance - 225 (range: 40–634); anorectal manometry - 90 (range: 10–450). Corresponding median wait times in months were as follows: esophageal HRM - 4 (range: 0.5–14); pH/Impedance - 4.5 (range: 0.5–14); anorectal manometry - 4.6 (range: 2–9). Only 6 of the 23 adult units met recommended wait time targets of <2 months. Testing was performed by a nurse in ~ 80% of centres, while testing was done by technicians in 2 units and physicians in 3 units. 8 units accepted referrals from primary care physicians, whereas the remainder only accepted specialist referrals. 50% screened referrals for appropriateness and restricted access accordingly. Conclusions The scope of motility and pH testing across Canada is variable, with lower GI testing lacking in many regions. Wait times vary significantly across labs and the majority of centres exceed recommended limits of 2 months. The reasons underlying the identified limitations to pH/motility testing access warrant further study. 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".