MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389851006 · doi:10.1002/9781119525127.ch8

Therapeutic Colonoscopy

2023· other· en· W4389851006 on OpenAlexaff
Catharine M. Walsh MD MEd PhD FRCPC, Ahmir Ahmad MBBS BSc MRCP, Brian P. Saunders MD FRCP FRCS, Jonathan Cohen MD FASGE FACG, Peter B. Cotton MD FRCP FRCS, Christopher B. Williams BM FRCP FRCS, Stephen Preston

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyMedicineInternal medicineColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colonoscopy has an increasing therapeutic role and all aspiring colonoscopists must have a basic grasp of therapeutic interventions. Polypectomy, in particular, is a fundamental part of therapeutic colonoscopy. This chapter covers pre-procedure aspects including consent and risks, required equipment, principles of polyp electrosurgery, and the approach to managing small polyps as well as stalked and sessile polyps. The equipment requirements for endoscopic polypectomy are few, and in many ways the fewer the better. The polypectomy technique should be appropriate for the size and shape of the polyp. Tiny polyps are by far the most frequently encountered polyps during colonoscopy. With larger polyps, it is important first to assess for any evidence of submucosal invasion by using advanced endoscopic imaging. This ensures that endoscopic removal is safe. In such cases, techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, transanal microsurgery, or standard surgery may be required.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.044

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→