MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391886381 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.203

A203 PERORAL ENDOSCOPIC MYOTOMY (POEM) FOR COMPLEX ACHALASIA AND THE POEM DIFFICULTY SCORE: AN UPDATE

2024· article· en· W4391886381 on OpenAlexaff
Colin Yee, Michael Youssef, Matthew Woo, Robert Bechara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchalasiaMyotomyPoetryMedicineLiteratureSurgeryArtEsophagus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background POEM for achalasia can be challenging in patients with complex achalasia (CA) (i.e., type III achalasia, multiple prior treatments, prior myotomy, and sigmoid type). The POEM difficulty score (PDS) identifies factors that contribute to challenging POEM procedures. (Figure 1) Here, we present an update on the PDS in a series of patients with non-CA and CAs. Aims Our aim was to determine whether, with the introduction of the TT-J knife with waterjet functionality, the PDS still maintains a strong correlation with procedural efficiency and technical difficulty. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent POEM for achalasia between May 2018 to July 2023 at the Kingston Health Sciences Center. 139 consecutive POEMs were performed, with 74 CAs. Primary outcomes include correlation of procedural efficiency with the PDS. Secondary outcomes include clinical success at the last followup and adverse events. Demographics and procedural variables were compared with descriptive statistics (mean ± SD; median, min-max range) and the Mann-Whitney U-test. Pre and post-POEM Echkhardt scores were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results 74 (56.7% male) complex and 65 (55.4% male) non-complex POEM procedures were carried out. The mean age is 56.7 ± 16.5 years and 47.3 ± 20.2 years in CA and non-CA respectively. PDS correlates moderately with procedural efficiency with a correlation coefficient of 0.595 (Spearman’s Pampersand:003C0.001). A subanalysis is available in Table 1. The mean efficiency for non-CA was 3.3min/cm±1.2. The median PDS for non-CA was 1 (0-5). In comparison, the mean efficiency for CA were 3.3min/cm ± 1.3 (type III), 5.3min/cm ± 2.3 (prior myotomy), 4.0min/cm ± 1.7 (≥4 prior procedures), and 5.2min/cm ± 2.4 (sigmoid type). The median PDS for CA was 3 (0-6) (type III), 4 (0-8) (prior myotomy), 3 (0-8) (≥4 prior procedures), and 3 (0-6) (sigmoid type). CA and non-CA POEM procedures were completed with 97% and 98% clinical success, respectively. Conclusions PDS continues to moderately correlate with procedural efficiency using the TT-J knife. However, the presence of spastic contractions correlated poorly with procedural efficiency. Thus, it may be omitted with the use of the TT-J knife. The order of increasing difficulty of POEM in CA appears to be type III, prior myotomy, sigmoid type, and ≥4 prior procedures. Multi-center prospective studies are needed to validate PDS in different clinical settings. Table 1: Sub-analysis of individual PDS factors and procedural velocity Figure 1: Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) difficulty score (PDS): "FOODS" 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 Gastroenterology→Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→