MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391873348 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.127

A127 ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION WITH HYBRID-ARGON PLASMA ABLATION TO PREVENT RECURRENCE OF 20 MM NON-PEDUNCULATED COLORECTAL POLYPS: A MULTI-CENTER PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL STUDY

2024· article· en· W4391873348 on OpenAlexaff
Roupen Djinbachian, John M. Levenick, Simon Bouchard, Matthew T. Moyer, Érik Deslandres, Jeffrey D. Mosko, Christopher Teshima, Neal Shahidi, Daniel von Renteln

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgon plasma coagulationEndoscopic mucosal resectionMedicineAblationColorectal PolypCenter (category theory)ResectionProspective cohort studyRadiofrequency ablationColorectal cancerGastroenterologyInternal medicineGeneral surgeryEndoscopySurgeryColonoscopyChemistryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the mainstay of therapy for non-pedunculated colorectal polyps 20 mm or larger. Post EMR recurrence rates are about 15% if no margin ablation technique is used. Aims Study aim was to evaluate recurrence rates if hybrid Argon Plasma Coagulation ablation (h-APC) is routinely used after the EMR to ablate the margins, base and vessels. Methods A prospective multi-center study including adult patients (18-89 years) undergoing EMR of non-pedunculated colorectal polyps 20 mm or larger was conducted. h-APC was used to ablate all post EMR margins and to ablate the post EMR resection surface and visible submucosal vessels. The primary outcome was the biopsy proven recurrence rate at the first follow-up colonoscopy (4-6 months after EMR). All the resection sites were visually inspected, and biopsies were obtained from the EMR scar. Secondary outcomes included technical success and complication rates. Results A total of 220 EMRs were performed during the study for h-APC ablation of non-pedunculated colorectal polyps, with a size of ≥20 mm. The average size of the polyps included in the study was 35.7 mm (ranging from 20 mm to 100 mm). Among all resected polyps, 16.8% were sessile serrated lesions (SSL), while 66.3% were adenomas. Additionally, 4 cases of cancer were in the study. The application of hot snare EMR with h-APC ablation was technically successful and completed for all cases. The mean duration of the EMR procedure was 19.6 minutes, ranging from 2.3 to 103 minutes, while the mean duration of h-APC ablation was 6.4 minutes, ranging from 1 to 65 minutes. A total of 147 EMRs with follow up examination (57 EMR involving lesions 40mm or larger) are available currently. The overall recurrence rate was 1.3% (2 out of 147 cases). For cases where complete base ablation was achieved, there was a 0% recurrence rate, including lesions 40mm or larger. For lesions measuring 40mm or larger, the recurrence rate was 1.8% (1 out of 54 cases). Out of the 220 total EMRs conducted, perforations were observed in 0.9% (2 cases, managed conservatively with antibiotics only), and clinically significant bleeding occurred in 2.3% (5 cases). In particular, clinically significant bleeding was noted in 2.3% (4 out of 167 cases) of lesions without clipping and in 4.0% (4 out of 99 cases) for right-sided lesions without clipping. Conclusions In this multicenter study EMR in combination with h-APC demonstrated a high technical success rate with low complication rates and showed very low post EMR recurrence in the preliminary data analysis. Funding Agencies Erbe

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)0.002
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207