A195 THE CANADIAN POEM EXPERIENCE. THE FIRST 50 PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Achalasia is a disorder of esophageal motility characterized by a loss of enteric neurons resulting in impaired relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter and absence of esophageal peristalsis. There are no current treatments that allow for regeneration of the enteric neurons. Interventions focus primarily on lowering the LES pressure to provide symptom relief and improve quality of life. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has emerged as a less invasive technique for performing myotomy in patients with achalasia. Aims This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of POEM in a Canadian tertiary care center. Methods All consecutive patients who underwent POEM between March 2016 and May 2018 at a tertiary center were included. The primary outcome of the study was clinical success rate of POEM defined as a post-POEM Eckardt score ≤ 3 at ≥ 3 months. Adverse events were recorded according to the Clavien-Dindo grading system. Results A total of 50 consecutive patients underwent 51 POEM procedures with a mean procedure length of 85.6±29.6 minutes. Post-POEM Eckardt scores of ≤ 3 at ≥ 3 months was achieved in 98% of patients. The incidence of pathologic reflux post-poem was 23%. The median length of hospital stay was 1 day (range 1–2 days). No major adverse events occurred. Conclusions POEM is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of achalasia. At a median follow up of 19.5 months, 98% of patients had sustained clinical response (Eckardt score ≤ 3). Stages of POEM. a) Injection and mucosal incision, b) submucosal tunneling c) completed tunnel, view from just above the lower esophageal sphincter (main), gastric side (right upper) and esophageal side (right lower) d) myotomy e[i]) completed myotomy f) closure with hemostatic clips. 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".