An International Survey of Practices in the Investigation and Endoscopic Treatment of Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions amongst Interventional Bronchoscopists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The investigation of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) can be challenging. Several bronchoscopic modalities have been developed to reach and biopsy PPL but the level of adoption of these techniques by interventional pulmonologists (IPs) is unknown. This international survey was conducted to describe current practices in PPL investigation among IP. METHODS: This survey was sent to all members of the World Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology, Canadian Thoracic Society Procedures Assembly, AABIP, and the Groupe d'Endoscopie Thoracique et Interventionnel Francophone. The survey was composed of 48 questions and three clinical cases to establish a portrait of modalities used to investigate and treat PPL by IP around the world. RESULTS: Three hundred and twelve IP responded to the survey. Most of them practice in Europe (n = 122), North America (n = 97), and Asia (n = 49). Half of responders perform more than 100 endoscopic procedures for PPL annually. General anesthesia and conscious sedation are used in similar proportions (53% and 47%, respectively). Rapid on site evaluation (ROSE) is used when sampling PPL by 42%. Radial EBUS (69%), fluoroscopy (55%), and electromagnetic navigation (27%) are the most widely used techniques. Most IP combine techniques (89%). Robotic bronchoscopy (15%) and cone-beam CT (8%) are almost exclusively used in the USA where, respectively, 60% and 37% of respondents reported using these modalities. Ten percent of IP currently had access to endoscopic treatment modalities for PPL. However, half of the remaining IP plan to acquire an endoscopic treatment modality in the next 2 years. CONCLUSION: Available techniques and practices worldwide vary significantly regarding PPL investigation and treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".