MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395052733 · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1782792

Comparing a virtual scale endoscope and snares for size measurement accuracy of smaller colorectal polyps: A randomized controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4395052733 on OpenAlexaff
Roupen Djinbachian, Mahsa Taghiakbari, Abla Alj, Sacha Sidani, Jeremy Liu Chen Kiow, B. Panzini, Mickaël Bouin, Daniel von Renteln

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialScale (ratio)EndoscopeMedical physicsRadiologySurgeryCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims Accurate measurement of polyp size during colonoscopy is crucial for informing clinical decisions such as resection techniques and surveillance scheduling. This study aimed to compare polyp size measurement accuracy when using a virtual scale endoscope (VSE) or snare-based polyp size measurement. Methods This randomized controlled trial enrolled 221 patients undergoing screening, surveillance or diagnostic outpatient colonoscopies. Study subjects were randomized to have all detected polyps measured for size either using VSE or a snare of known size to estimate the size of each polyp during the colonoscopy. All polyps were measured for reference size directly after their removal from the colon using a digital caliper and before formalin fixation. Results 93 polyps were included in the VSE group and 102 in the Snare group. VSE demonstrated significantly higher relative accuracy (80.0% [95% CI: 77.0-82.9]) compared to snare-based size estimation (66.4% [95% CI: 62.4-70.5]; p<0.001). Misclassification rates were lower with VSE for polyps>2mm (13.1% vs. 39.3%) and>3mm (22.6% vs. 55.4%). For diminutive polyps, VSE better prevented misclassification (<5mm: 6.1% vs. 2.6%;>5mm: 21.4% vs. 73.0%; p=). VSE also outperformed snare in measuring within 10% of reference standard size (30.1% vs. 18.6%) and had lower rates of size underestimation (36.5% vs. 65.7%). Conclusions Using VSE improves polyp size measurement accuracy during colonoscopy in comparison with snare-based size estimation. In clinical scenarios, VSE reduced misclassifications at clinically relevant size thresholds 2,3 and 5mm which is relevant for adequate choice of polypectomy techniques or when implementing resect and discard strategies. 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207