A25 MEASURING THE OBSERVER (HAWTHORNE) EFFECT ON ADENOMA DETECTION RATES: A CASE-CONTROL RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The effectiveness of colonoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) is directly linked to its procedural quality. An independent observer (Hawthorne effect) can improve colonoscopy procedural quality metrics, including adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the results of studies are limited or controversial. Purpose We aimed to evaluate the colonoscopy quality metrics in a group of patients undergoing screening or diagnostic colonoscopies under stringent observer conditions. Method In a single-center, case–control study, consecutive patients undergoing routine screening or diagnostic colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled. In the case group, all procedural steps and quality metrics were observed and documented, and the procedure was video recorded by an independent research assistant. In the control group, colonoscopies were performed without independent observation. Colonoscopy quality metrics such as polyp, adenoma, serrated lesions, and advanced adenoma detection rates (PDR, ADR, SLDR, AADR), the mean number of adenomas detected per patient (MAP), and the mean number of adenomas and serrated lesions detected per patient (MASP) were compared. The probabilities of increased quality metrics were evaluated through regression analyses weighted by the inversed probability of observation during the procedure. Result(s) We included a total of 687 patients (327 cases and 360 controls) in the final analyses. The case group had significantly higher PDRs (62.4% vs. 53.1%) and ADRs (39.4% vs. 28.3%) compared with the control group. The SLDR was also higher in the case group than in the control group, but the difference was not significant (7.3% vs. 4.4%; P = 0.14). The AADR was not significantly increased. After adjusting for potential confounders, the ADR and SLDR were 50% (odds ratio [OR] 1.51; 95%CI 1.05–2.17) and more than twofold (OR 2.17; 95%CI 1.05–4.47) more likely to be higher in the case group than in the control group. The MAP and MASP were significantly increased in the case group compared with the control group (P < 0.001). The regression analyses for both metrics demonstrated the direct and significant association between the Hawthorne effect and elevated MAP/MASP. Conclusion(s) The presence of an independent observer documenting colonoscopy quality metrics and video recording the colonoscopy resulted in a significant increase in ADR and other quality metrics. The Hawthorne effect should be considered an alternative strategy to advanced devices to improve colonoscopy quality in routine practice. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest M. Taghiakbari: None Declared, D. Coman: None Declared, M. Takla: None Declared, A. N. Barkun: None Declared, M. Frija-Gruman: None Declared, M. Bouin: None Declared, S. Bouchard: None Declared, E. Deslandres: None Declared, S. Sidani: None Declared, D. von Renteln Grant / Research support from: ERBE, Ventage, Pendopharm, and Pentax, Consultant of: Boston Scientific and Pendopharm
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".