Combining endoscopic mucosal resection with hybrid argon plasma coagulation to reduce local colorectal lesion recurrence: a video tutorial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a safe, effective, and surgery-sparing technique for removing large colorectal lesions [1]. Although piecemeal EMR is recommended for polyps > 20 mm in size, it remains a suboptimal technique for complete lesion resection, with high rates of residual polyp and recurrence rates reaching 15 % [2]. Hybrid argon plasma coagulation (hAPC) is a novel approach allowing ablation of resection margins and surface after EMR. hAPC combines waterjet injection and argon plasma coagulation (APC) in a single device. On-demand, repeatable saline cushioning without instrument exchange reduces thermal ablative insult to deep tissue structures, allowing for effective destruction of micro-remnants with reduced risk of perforation. High technical success and low recurrence rates (0 %) were shown in a pilot study using EMR in combination with hAPC [3]. A prospective international multicenter study showed that the local recurrence rate was only 2.2 % when using hAPC after EMR [4]. One recent meta-analysis found the local recurrence rate to be 3.3 % after hot EMR and margin ablation at 12-month follow-up [5].
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".