MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323351186 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.200

A200 HIGH-DEFINITION CHROMOENDOSCOPY RESULTS IN MORE SIGNIFICANT DYSPLASIA DETECTION THAN WHITE LIGHT ENDOSCOPY WITH RANDOM BIOPSIES IN ULCERATIVE COLITIS PATIENTS

2023· article· en· W4323351186 on OpenAlexaffabout
T T Hoang, Y Leung, Greg Rosenfeld, B Bressler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromoendoscopyDysplasiaMedicineColonoscopyUlcerative colitisGastroenterologyInternal medicineInflammatory bowel diseaseColorectal cancerBiopsyPopulationEndoscopyCancerDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory bowel disease that results in inflammation of the colonic mucosa, leading to abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, weight loss, and diarrhea. This chronic inflammation results in a 2.4-fold increased future risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) in UC patients compared to the general population. Thus, careful dysplasia screening modalities are required to prevent progression to CRC. Currently, both high-definition white light endoscopy with non-targeted biopsies (HD-WLR) and dye-spray chromoendoscopy (HDCE) are regularly used across Canada for dysplasia surveillance given existing research has been inconclusive regarding superiority of one particular method, and that recent guidelines do not suggest a preference. Purpose The primary objective of this study was to determine which surveillance modality yielded a higher dysplasia detection rate in UC patients, both by calculating the total number of dysplastic lesions detected, as well as calculating the number of patients with at least one dysplastic lesion detected using either technique. Method We conducted a single-centre retrospective chart review of 150 UC patients who underwent dysplasia surveillance at our site between January 2019-2021. We calculated the dysplasia detection rate of both techniques at the time of the first CRC screening colonoscopy. Result(s) Eighteen dysplastic lesions were detected in total, three by HD-WLR and fifteen by HDCE. Dysplasia was detected in 4% (3/75) and 14.5% (15/75) of UC patients by HD-WLR and HDCE respectively, with significantly fewer biopsies (4.44 + 4.3 vs 29.1 + 13.0) required. HD-WLR detected two polypoid and one non-polypoid lesion, while HDCE detected eleven polypoid and four non-polypoid lesions. No invisible dysplasia or colorectal cancer was detected. Screening was performed at 10.8 + 4.8 and 9.72 + 3.05 years following UC diagnosis for HDCE and HD-WLR respectively. Median withdrawal time was 9.0 + 2.7 min (HD-WLR) vs 9.6 + 3.9min (HDCE). Image Conclusion(s) HDCE resulted in higher dysplasia detection rates compared to HD-WLR in a UC patient population. Given the former technique is less tedious and costly, our findings suggest HDCE should be considered over HD-WLR for UC dysplasia surveillance. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207