Assessment of Capsule Endoscopy Utilizing Capsocam Plus in Patients With Suspected Small Bowel Disease Including Pilot Study With Remote Access Patients During Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CapsoCam Plus is a capsule endoscopy (CE) system that utilizes four cameras to capture a panoramic view. This has theoretical advantage over conventional forward-viewing CE with limited field of view. Its ease of administration without requiring any additional equipment during the recording also provides a unique opportunity for patients to self-administer the test. We aimed to evaluate real-life experience using this novel system and to determine feasibility of a remote access program. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was conducted for consecutive adult outpatients who underwent CE using CapsoCam Plus. Patients with significant challenges for in-person procedures were selected for remote access through mail courier services. Gastric transit time, small bowel transit time, completion rate, diagnostic yield and adverse events were compared between remote access versus usual practice. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients (52.1% male) were included, with 28 in remote access program. Most common indication was gastrointestinal bleeding (85.1%). Complete examination was achieved in 87 patients. Five (5.3%) patients' capsule remained in stomach during the recording, while two (2.1%) patients missed capsule retrieval. Median small bowel and gastric transit times were 231.9 (interquartile range [IQR] 169.5-308.2) and 27.6 (IQR 13.8-63.5) minutes, respectively. Diagnostic yield was 23.4%. There was no difference in completion rate or transit times between two groups, but diagnostic yield was higher in remote access group (odds ratio 3.80, 95% confidence interval 1.28-11.31). One patient required elective endoscopic retrieval of capsule. CONCLUSION: CapsoCam Plus can be safely administered remotely with a high degree of success, which may facilitate timely investigations while limiting nonessential physical interactions during pandemic.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".