Supplementary Material for: Compared the effectiveness and safety of different methods of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Traditional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has developed different methods, such as pocket method(P-ESD), traction-assisted method(T-ESD) and Hybrid method(H-ESD). In this meta-analysis, the benefits and drawbacks of different ESD methods were discussed and ranked. Study design: Studies comparing different methods of colorectal ESD were searched by PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The study was conducted for five endpoints: en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, operation time, dissection speed, and adverse events rate. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed through Rev Man 5.4 and Stata 16.0. The quality of all included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, including 7 RCTs and 19 non-RCTs, with a total of 3002 patients. The pooled analysis showed that the en bloc resection rate of H-ESD was significantly lower than C-ESD, P-ESD and T-ESD [RR=0.28, 95%CI (0.12, 0.65); RR = 0.11, 95% CI (0.03, 0.44); RR = 8.28, 95% CI (2.50, 27.42)]. Compared with C-ESD, the operation time of H-ESD and T-ESD was significantly shorter [MD=-21.83, 95%CI (-34.76, -8.90); MD=-23.8, 95%CI (-32.55, -15.06)]. Meanwhile, the operation time of T-ESD was also significantly shorter than P-ESD [MD=-18.74, 95%CI (-31.93, -5.54)]. The dissection speed of T-ESD was significantly faster than C-ESD [MD=6.26, 95%CI (2.29, 10.23)]. Conclusion: P-ESD and T-ESD are probably the two best methods of colorectal ESD at present. The advantages of P-ESD are high en bloc resection rate and low incidence of adverse events. The advantages of T-ESD are rapid dissection and short operation time.
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 | 0.007 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.633 | 0.027 |
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".