National Survey Regarding the Timing of Endoscopic Procedures during the Covid-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several questions have arisen about which endoscopic procedures (EPs) must be performed and which ones can be postponed. The aim of this study was to conduct a nationwide survey regarding the appropriate timing of EPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This prospective study was performed through a nationwide electronic survey. The survey consisted of 15 questions divided into three sections. The first evaluated the agreement for EPs classified as “time sensitive” and “not time sensitive”. Two other sections assessed “high-priority” and “low-priority” scenarios. Agreement was considered when >75% of respondents answered a question in the same direction. Results: The response rate was 27.2% (214/784). Among the respondents, agreement for the need to perform EP in <72 hours was only reached for variceal bleeding (93.4%). Dysphagia with alarm symptoms was the scenario in which the highest percentage of physicians (95.9%) agreed that an EP needed to be performed within a month. Less than 30% of endoscopists would perform an EP within the first 72 hours for patients with mild cholangitis, non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding without hemodynamic instability, or severe anaemia without overt bleeding. In time-sensitive clinical scenarios suggestive of benign disease, none of the scenarios reached agreement in any sense. Among the time-sensitive clinical scenarios suggestive of malignancy, >90% of the surveyed respondents considered that EP could not be postponed for >8 weeks. Conclusions: There was no consensus among endoscopists about the timing of EPs in patients with pathologies considered time sensitive or in those with high-priority pathologies. Agreement was only reached in five (17%) of the evaluated clinical scenarios.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".