MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388517559 · doi:10.1055/s-0043-1765171

International Delphi Consensus Study on Disposable Single-Use Endoscopy: A Path to Clinical Adoption

2023· article· en· W4388517559 on OpenAlexaff
Kareem Khalaf, Alessandro Repici, Edoardo Troncone, Sharmila Subramaniam, Cesare Hassan, Pradeep Bhandari

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMedical Device Sterilization and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodEndoscopyDelphiSingle useSustainabilityMedical emergencyMedical physicsSurgeryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims Increasing infectious rate estimates and low microbiological surveillance affect safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy globally. Single use endoscopes and accessories have been claimed to improve safety, but there is lack of data on their indication and sustainability. We aimed to identify a series of best practice recommendations for the use of single use endoscopes and accessories using a modified Delphi. Methods Consensus statements were developed utilizing an international endoscopist expert panel of 63 experts from 33 nations. The main steps in the process were selecting the consensus group, conducting systematic literature reviews, developing statements, and anonymous voting on the statements until consensus was reached [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ]. Results Category 1: single use accessories (8 statements), related to defining recommendations for the use of single use accessories in all patient populations or high-risk patients. Category 2: clinical indication for single use endoscopes (9 statements), including indications to high-risk patients, protecting the endoscope apparatus and contamination measures in endoscopy units. Category 3: technical factors (4 statements), related to superior performance and technical specifications with the new innovation. Category 4: environmental issues (2 statements), concerning mechanisms that reduce the detrimental burden to the environment. Category 5: financial implications (3 statements), related to healthcare policies, cost neutrality and other financial associations of single use endoscopy ([ Fig. 1 ]). Fig. 1 Conclusions This is the first international initiative in determining clinical indications for single use endoscopy and accessories for their implementation in clinical practice. Final Delphi Consensus Recommendations Publication History Article published online: 14 April 2023 © 2023. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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)0.321
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.311
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3210.311
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicMedical Device Sterilization and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207