MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Colonoscopy Training Environment with Real-Time Pressure Monitoring

2023· article· en· W4390993463 on OpenAlexaff
Anirudh Vajpeyi, Anish S. Naidu, Srikanth Bhattad, Jeffrey Hawel, Christopher M. Schlachta, Rajni V. Patel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyComputer scienceTraining (meteorology)Real-time computingArtificial intelligenceMedicineInternal medicineColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colonoscopy is the most commonly used procedure for screening and diagnosing colorectal cancers. The number of colonoscopy procedures performed each year is increasing as colon cancer currently ranks second among the leading cancers causing death worldwide. One of the significant factors resulting in incomplete colonoscopy procedures is pain and discomfort caused by the use of excessive force by the endoscopist. Learning the necessary skills for performing a successful procedure is technically challenging and requires substantial training. The present learning techniques primarily focus on completing the procedure rather than on controlling the applied pressure transmitted by the colonoscope to the colon wall. In this paper, we present a pressure-sensing sleeve that has been developed to provide real-time pressure monitoring during colonoscopy training on a simulator. This can be used along with movement tracking of the simulator colon and three-dimensional shape estimation of the colonoscope using electromagnetic tracking for training purposes. The sensing modalities complement each other and provide the trainee with real-time visual feedback on the section of the colonoscope transmitting the pressure to the colon during a simulated colonoscopy procedure. The pressure data, the colon movement data, and the position and the quality of advancement of the scope through the colon are used to objectively evaluate the trainee’s performance using the metrics described in this paper. Such a training environment can help in providing the necessary skills to trainees while keeping the transmitted pressure within safe limits to minimize patient discomfort and maximize safety.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.270
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207