A123 MINIMALLY INVASIVE ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION TECHNIQUE PERFORMANCE FOR PERI-APPENDICEAL COLORECTAL NEOPLASIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Minimally invasive endoscopic resection techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) have revolutionized the management of peri-appendiceal colorectal neoplasia. However, questions remain about their comparative performance. Aims We sought to evaluate the performance of EMR, ESD and EFTR for peri-appendiceal colorectal neoplasia. Methods Two authors independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Libraries (Jan 2000 – Aug 2021) for citations evaluating the performance of endoscopic resection techniques (EMR, ESD, EFTR) for peri-appendiceal colorectal neoplasia (defined as those involving or in close proximity to the appendiceal orifice). The incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of technical success (complete removal of all neoplastic tissue at index procedure), clinically significant post-endoscopic resection bleeding (CSPEB), delayed perforation, recurrence and referral to surgery were assessed using random-effects modelling. Results 12 studies were included in the analysis (479 patients: 185 EMR, 171 ESD, 123 EFTR). Technical success was achieved in 93.5% (95% CI 90.9%-95.4%, EMR 93.5%, ESD 94.1%, EFTR 92.7%). Clinically significant post-endoscopic resection bleeding occurred in 1.3% (95% CI 0.4%-4.3%, EMR 3.8%, ESD 1.2%, EFTR 0%). Delayed perforation occurred in 1.9% (95% CI 0.9%-3.9%, EMR 0%, ESD 2.4%, EFTR 2.4%). Recurrence occurred in 5.7% (95% CI 2.3%-13.8%, EMR 14.3%, ESD 0.2%, EFTR 12.2–14.3%). Referral to surgery occurred in 9.0% (95% CI 6.7%-12.0%, EMR 8.1%, ESD 9.5%, EFTR 9.8%). Conclusions Minimally invasive endoscopic resection techniques including EMR, ESD and EFTR demonstrate high frequencies of technical success with comparable adverse event profiles. They should now be viewed as first-line therapeutic modalities for the management of peri-appendiceal colorectal neoplasia. 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 | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".