MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4395066798 · doi:10.1016/j.clinme.2024.100062

Accuracy and efficacy of the endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in diagnosing focal liver lesion (FLL), obtaining liver sampling and liver abscess drainage; A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4395066798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eyad Gadour, Abeer Awad, Zeinab Hassan, Khalid Shrwani, Bogdan Miuţescu, Hussein Okasha

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiver abscessEndoscopic ultrasoundMeta-analysisRadiologySampling (signal processing)LesionDiagnostic accuracyUltrasoundAbscessInternal medicinePathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Recently, there has been a surge in the clinical utilisation of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in hepatology [1]. These applications range from diagnosis to treatment of various liver diseases [2]. Therefore, the current systematic review has summarised the evidence on the diagnostic and therapeutic roles of EUS in liver diseases. Materials and methods PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were extensively scoured for studies until October 2023. The methodological quality of the eligible articles was performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale or Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. In addition, statistical analyses were performed with the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Results and discussion A total of 45 articles (28 evaluating the diagnostic role and 17 evaluating the therapeutic role of EUS) were included. The pooled analysis demonstrated that EUS diagnostic tests have an accuracy of 92.4% for focal liver lesions (FLL) and 96.6% for parenchymal liver diseases [Fig. 1]. In addition, the cumulative analyses showed that EUS-guided liver biopsies (EUS-LB) with either fine needle aspiration (FNA) or fine needle biopsy (FNB) have low complication rates when sampling FLL and parenchymal liver diseases (3.1% and 8.7%, respectively). Furthermore, analysis of data from four studies has shown that EUS-guided liver abscess (EUS-AD) has a high clinical (90.7%) and technical success (90.7%) without significant complications. Similarly, EUS-guided interventions for the treatment of gastric varices (GV) have a high technical success (98%) and GV obliteration rates (84%), with low complications (15%) and rebleeding events (17%) [Fig. 2]. Conclusion EUS in liver diseases is a promising technique with the potential to be considered as a first-line therapeutic and diagnostic option in selected cases.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.041
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.271
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Medicine→Same topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→