Faculty Opinions recommendation of Utility and cost-effectiveness of a non-endoscopic approach to barrett's esophagus surveillance after endoscopic therapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: A non-endoscopic approach to Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) would offer a less invasive method for monitoring. We assessed the test characteristics and cost-effectiveness of the Cytosponge® in post-RFA patients.METHODS: We performed a multicenter study of dysplastic BE patients after at least one round of RFA. A positive Cytosponge® before endoscopy was defined as intestinal metaplasia (IM) on cytological assessment and/or TFF3 immunohistochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated. Multivariable regression was used to estimate the odds of a positive Cytosponge® in BE. A microsimulation cost-effectiveness model was performed to assess outcomes of various surveillance strategies: endoscopy-only, Cytosponge®-only, and alternating endoscopy/Cytosponge®.RESULTS: Of 234 patients, Cytosponge® adequately sampled the distal esophagus in 175 (75%). Of the 142 with both endoscopic and histologic data, 19 (13%) had residual/recurrent BE. For detecting any residual Barrett's, Cytosponge® had a sensitivity of 74%, specificity of 85%, accuracy of 84%, and ROC curve showed an area under the curve of 0.74. The adjusted odds of a positive Cytosponge® in BE were 17.1 (95% CI: 5.2-55.9). Cytosponge®-only surveillance dominated all the surveillance strategies, being both less costly and more effective. Cytosponge®-only surveillance required < 1/4th the endoscopies, resulting in only 0.69 additional EAC cases/1,000 patients, and no increase in EAC deaths when compared to currently-practiced endoscopy-only surveillance.CONCLUSIONS: A positive Cytosponge® test was strongly associated with residual BE after ablation. While the assay needs further refinement in this context, it could serve as a cost-effective surveillance examination.Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. PMID: 33581357
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 | 0.009 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.243 | 0.092 |
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".