MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395033617 · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1783550

Outcomes of ERCP’s Performed in the AM vs. PM: Does Procedural Timing Matter?

2024· article· en· W4395033617 on OpenAlexaff
S. Malipatil, Kareem Khalaf, Nasruddin Sabrie, Maya Deeb, W Mhalawi, Daniel Tham, A. Mokhtar, C. Na, Sophia Abal, Dr Chopra, Samir Gupta, Sechiv Jugnundan, Nikko Gimpaya, Yoshinori Fujiyoshi, Mary Raina Angeli Fujiyoshi, Katarzyna M. Pawlak, Nicolas Calo, J. Mosko, Christopher Teshima, Gary R. May, Samir C. Grover

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an establisheddiagnostic and therapeutic tool for hepatobiliary disease. Given its technicaldemands, it remains one of the highest-risk endoscopic procedures with reportedadverse event rates of up to 12%. Addressing modifiable factors, such as operatorfatigue, may mitigate procedural risk. In colonoscopy, there is conflicting data onwhether procedure time of day, as a surrogate of operator fatigue, affectsoutcomes, with some literature demonstrating decreased procedure completion andpolyp detection rates in the afternoon. There is a paucity of data evaluating thispotential relationship in ERCP. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact ofprocedure time of day on procedural success and short-term adverse outcomes inpatients undergoing ERCP. Methods The records of 5755 consecutive ERCP procedures performed on adult patients atour tertiary referral center from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020 wereretrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was the procedural success rate,defined as successful navigation to the papilla, selective duct cannulation andcholangiography, and realization of the intended therapeutic goals. Secondaryoutcomes included procedure duration, rate of deep ductal cannulation, rate ofsphincterotomy, and short-term (30-day) adverse events (immediate bleeding,pancreatitis, perforation). Statistical analysis was conducted using R. Categoricalvariables were compared using the Chi-square test of independence or Fisher’sexact test. Continuous variables were compared using T-tests or the Mann- Whitney-U test. The normality of a given variable was assessed using the Shapiro- Wilk’s test. Results A total of 5755 ERCP’s were performed between 8 AM – 6 PM; 2863 wereperformed before 12PM (AM group) and 2892 after 12PM (PM group). Baselinecharacteristics were similar between the two cohorts, with the exception ofhypertension (33.7% AM vs 30.1% PM; p=0.003), and anticoagulation (20.3% AMvs 18.3% PM; p=0.05) (Table 1). In both groups, the most common ERCPindication was choledocholithiasis. The primary operators in both cohorts werepredominantly clinical fellows. There was no difference in procedural success rate(87.0% AM vs 86.7% PM; p=0.72), procedure duration (33.6 minutes AM vs 32.9minutes PM; p=0.29), rates of deep cannulation (82.9% AM vs 83.0% PM;p=0.81) and sphincterotomies (63.2% vs 62.7%; p=0.68). Rate of adverse eventswere similar, with slightly higher rates of immediate bleeding in the AM group (5.0%AM vs 3.8% PM; p=0.03). Results were similar in a subgroup analysis of patientswith altered anatomy and procedures without fellow involvement. Conclusions In conclusion, the procedure time of day did not impact procedural success rate.There were slightly higher rates of immediate bleeding in the AM group, though thismay be explained by higher rates of anticoagulation in that group Publication History Article published online: 15 April 2024 © 2024. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 venueEndoscopySame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207