Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection for colonic polyps: addressing methodological critiques and enhancing future discussions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
See also: Methodological issues in the evaluation of cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection for colon polyps Endoscopy 2024; 56(01): 79-79 DOI: 10.1055/a-2162-8583 10.1055/a-2162-8583 We appreciate the interest from Lv et al. in our study “Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection for colon polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis” [ 1 ]. In this response, we seek to address their comments, clarify our methodological choices, and affirm the conclusions of our study. First, the authors have commented on our use of the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for the assessment of the included studies. We applied the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale uniformly across our study selection, aligning with our aim to pool rates and not to compare groups via odds ratios, thus treating the cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) arm of the included randomized controlled trials essentially as cohorts. This method is appropriate for our study because we are evaluating only one group and not comparing groups. Next, the authors have commented on data transformation. We conformed to the original random effects model concept, presuming normal distribution [ 2 ] [ 3 ], which is a familiar approach in prevalence meta-analyses in gastroenterology [ 4 ]. However, alternative methods, such as logit or double arcsine transformation, could have been explored [ 2 ]. Reassuringly, the overall results seem to align with the conclusions of the individual studies included in our analysis [ 1 ]. As we clarified in the paper, we clearly stated that there were no reported perforations or post-polypectomy syndromes in the included studies. The included estimate was the software’s conservative estimate of real-world possibilities beyond our study. We believe this enhances the generalizability and reliability of our study. Based on the above considerations, we maintain that our study provides clinicians with valuable information for decision making and provides important information regarding the safety and efficacy of CS-EMR for colon polyp resection. Future randomized controlled trials will be instrumental in further assessing the efficacy and safety of CS-EMR compared with conventional and underwater EMR. Publication History Article published online: 21 December 2023 © 2024. Thieme. 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".