MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391886336 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.132

A132 A COLON-SPECIFIC SELECTIVE RESECTION ALGORITHM FOR LARGE NON-PEDUNCULATED POLYPS OPTIMIZES EFFICIENCY WITH HIGH TECHNICAL AND CLINICAL SUCCESS: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

2024· article· en· W4391886336 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Jiang, Aein Zarrin, Arman Walia, Cherry Galorport, Robert Enns, Eric Lam, Neal Shahidi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProspective cohort studyResectionMedicineCohortAlgorithmInternal medicineComputer scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Endoscopic resection is now the first line treatment strategy for most large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colonic polyps (LNPCPs); which includes endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold snare resection (CSR), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). A selective resection algorithm incorporating EMR and ESD is cost effective and optimizes oncologic outcomes in the rectum. However, a focused evaluation for colonic lesions has not been described. Aims Assess the performance of a colon-specific selective resection algorithm for LNPCPs. Methods Consecutive patients ampersand:003E 18 years of age who underwent endoscopic resection for a LNPCP were enrolled in a prospective single center observation cohort study (clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05402696). Modality selection was determined by optical evaluation using the Paris and the Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET) classifications: 1) JNET I – CSR; 2) JNET IIA – EMR; 3) JNET IIB or Paris 0-IIC morphology – en bloc resection (EMR/ESD); 4) JNET III – referral to surgery/multi-disciplinary team review. Algorithm performance was evaluated by technical success (all neoplastic tissue removed at index procedure), procedure-related adverse events, referral to surgery, and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1). Results From 06/2022-09/2023, 230 patients underwent 244 procedures for 295 lesions. Median age was 67 years (IQR 61-74 years) and 127 (55.2%) were male. Median lesion size was 30mm (IQR 20-40mm). Cancer was identified in 12 (4.1%) LNPCPs. Based on pre-resection optical evaluation, 204 (69.2%), 86 (29.2%) and 5 (1.7%) LNPCPs underwent EMR, CSR and ESD, respectively. Technical success was 97.1%, 100.0% and 100.0% for EMR, CSR and ESD, respectively (p=0.245). Procedure duration was significantly shorter for CSR (10 min; IQR 8-15 min) compared to EMR (15 min; IQR 10-25 min) and ESD (30 min; IQR 30-60 min) (P ampersand:003C 0.001). There was no significant difference in intra-procedural perforation, clinically significant post-endoscopic resection bleeding, delayed perforation or serositis, with overall frequencies of 3.4%, 5.2%, 0% and 0.4% respectively. Surgery was performed for 15 lesions (11 submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC); 3 synchronous SMIC; 1 technical failure). Of LNPCPs completing SC1, there was 1 recurrence (1.2%) in the CSR group (p=0.366), which was successfully managed endoscopically. Conclusions A colon-specific selective resection algorithm optimizes procedural efficiency and the risk-benefit profiles of EMR, CSR and ESD for LNPCPs. 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.269 · 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