MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4212956697 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab049.079

A80 CANADIAN NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY NETWORK (CNN) SURVEY ON PH/MOTILITY TESTING IN CANADA

2022· article· en· W4212956697 on OpenAlexaffabout
David E. Reed, Michael Beyak, Daniela Laranja Gomes Rodrigues, S Vanner, William G. Paterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHigh resolution manometryAmbulatoryInternal medicineAchalasia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→