MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391873706 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.139

A139 EARLY VIDEO CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY VERSUS COLONOSCOPY FOLLOWING NEGATIVE ESOPHAGOGASTRODUDENOSCOPY IN PATIENTS WITH SUSPECTED UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING: PRELIMINARY DATA FROM A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

2024· article· en· W4391873706 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kinjal Patel, David Yang, Thomas Krahn, S Wesilenko, Brendan P. Halloran, Sergio Zepeda-Gómez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyRandomized controlled trialCapsule endoscopyObscure gastrointestinal bleedingEndoscopyGastrointestinal bleedingInternal medicineSurgeryGastroenterologyColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is recommended for initial endoscopic evaluation of patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). When this is negative, the standard recommendation is to perform a colonoscopy, despite low diagnostic yield of less than 5%. In these patients, the question remains as to whether small bowel investigations would be of higher yield prior to colonoscopy. Aims To compare the diagnostic yield between early video capsule endoscopy (VCE) versus colonoscopy after a negative EGD in patients with suspected UGIB. Methods This is preliminary data from a prospective randomized control trial (RCT) of adult patients with suspected UGIB (melena and hemoglobin drop of more than 20 g/L within 48 hours of admission). Patients at a single centre were enrolled prior to initial EGD; those with negative EGD were included and randomized to either colonoscopy (next day) or early VCE (immediately after EGD). Patients with a confirmed source of bleeding in their group required no further testing, but those without underwent further testing with the alternative (VCE or colonoscopy). We evaluated patient outcomes, including bleeding localization time, hospitalization duration, procedure count, complications and rebleeding rates. Results A total of 19 adult patients have been enrolled, of which 12 had negative EGD and were randomized to either VCE or colonoscopy, with six patients in each arm (Figure 1). In the VCE group, 100% (6/6) of patients had bleeding sources detected by early VCE, with 50% (3/6) of them undergoing endoscopic treatment. In the colonoscopy group, only one patient had a positive finding (1/6), the rest underwent subsequent VCE. The VCE identified the bleeding source in 80% (4/5) of patients with negative colonoscopy. Patient are outlined in Table 1. Conclusions Based on our preliminary data, the diagnostic yield of early and subsequent VCE was higher when compared to colonoscopy after initial negative EGD in patients with suspected UGIB. Table 1. Summary of findings and patient outcomes Funding Agencies Medtronic Canada (Brampton, ON, CA) will provide the video capsule in the treatment group. This is the only equipment funding required in this study.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207