American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on gastrostomy feeding tubes: methodology and review of evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying summary and recommendations article for strategies to manage endoscopically placed gastrostomy tubes. This article was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and specifically addresses the utility of PEG versus interventional radiology-guided gastrostomy (IR-G), the need for withholding antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications, appropriate timing to initiate tube feedings, and appropriate selection of the gastrostomy technique in patients with malignant dysphagia. In patients needing enteral access, the ASGE suggests PEG as the preferred technique for initial gastrostomy over IR-G. The ASGE recommends that tube feeding can be safely started within 4 hours of the gastrostomy without the need for an intentional delay. The ASGE suggests that a PEG can be performed without the need to withhold antiplatelet medications. In patients on anticoagulants who need to undergo PEG placement, the ASGE suggests that the periprocedural management of anticoagulants should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion with the patient regarding the risk of bleeding versus cardiovascular adverse events. In patients with malignant dysphagia, either transoral "Pull" PEG or transcutaneous "Direct" PEG can be performed for initial enteral access.
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 | 0.019 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".