MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388542054 · doi:10.1055/s-0043-1765703

Comparing margin ablation techniques after endoscopic mucosal resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps

2023· article· en· W4388542054 on OpenAlexaff
Roupen Djinbachian, Heiko Pohl, Douglas K. Rex, John M. Levenick, Douglas K. Pleskow, Michael B. Wallace, Mouen A. Khashab, Ameet Singh, Joshua Melson, Dennis Yang, Aleksandar Gavrić, Valérie Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic mucosal resectionMargin (machine learning)AblationResection marginResectionEndoscopyArgon plasma coagulationRadiofrequency ablationSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims This study compared local recurrence rate (LRR) after EMR without margin ablation, when using STSC margin, APC margin or hybrid APC (h-APC) margin and surface ablation. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed from several prospective collected EMR studies (NCT04220905, NCT04015765, NCT04117100). Data from 18–89-year-old patients undergoing hot snare EMR without ablation and with STSC margin ablation, APC margin ablation or h-APC margin and surface ablation were compared from 2017 to 2022. The included EMRs were taken from periods where margin ablation was historically not known to reduce recurrence as well as periods where margin ablation became routine practice. Patients with at least one follow-up colonoscopy with inspection of the post-EMR site for recurrence were included. The primary outcome was LRR at the first follow-up colonoscopy. Results A total of 411 patients (mean age: 65.1y, SD: 10.1, 46.4% female) with 441 EMRs were included. At surveillance colonoscopies recurrence rate was 22.6% (33/146, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]=16.1-30.3) in cases without ablation, 11.5% with STSC (16/139, 95%CI=6.7-18.0), 23.5% with APC (12/51, 95%CI=12.8-37.5), and 1.9% with h-APC ablation (2/105, 95%CI=0.2-6.7). Post-EMR LRR was significantly lower for h-APC compared to STSC (p=0.004), and significantly lower for STSC compared to no ablation (p=0.013). There was no significant difference for LRR between APC ablation and no margin ablation ([ Table 1 ]). Table 1 Conclusions EMR with h-APC margin and surface ablation resulted lower post-EMR recurrence rates compared to all other modalities. Both, h-APC and STSC significantly reduced LRR compared to no ablation. APC alone did not reduce LRR compared to no ablation. 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207