MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391874466 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.210

A210 ESOPHAGEAL SQUAMOUS PAPILLOMATOSIS AFTER ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION

2024· article· en· W4391874466 on OpenAlexaff
Rajit A. Gilhotra, Aein Zarrin, Steven Jiang, W Xiong, Neal Shahidi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndoscopic submucosal dissectionPapillomatosisMedicineRadiologyDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Squamous papillomatosis is a rare benign epithelial finding, generally found incidentally in the distal esophagus. The pathophysiology is not well understood but felt to be secondary to reflux and chemical irritation leading to leukoplakia and verrucous hyperplasia of the epithelium and papilloma formation. Aims To present a case of esophageal squamous papillomatosis after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and early esophageal cancer. Methods Case report and review of the literature Results A 78-year-old male with C3M3 BE and previous band mucosectomy for nodular dysplasia was referred for ESD of an early esophageal cancer. ESD was successfully performed, with histopathology identifying a low-risk well-differentiated intramucosal adenocarcinoma without lymphovascular invasion and negative margins. Radiofrequency ablation was performed 3-months post-resection for residual BE. Subsequent surveillance gastroscopy 6 months post-resection identified extensive fleshy pink granulation tissue at the ESD scar, histopathology revealing SP. This was confirmed on subsequent repeat gastroscopy and biopsy. Compliance with double dose proton pump inhibitor therapy was confirmed. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of SP developing post-ESD and RFA; further expanding our knowledge of potential Barrett’s endotherapy-related adverse events. Funding Agencies None

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designCase report
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