A30 THROUGH-THE-SCOPE CLIP WITH ANCHOR PRONGS FOR PROPHYLACTIC CLIP CLOSURE AFTER GI LESION RESECTION: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Endoscopic clipping following gastrointestinal (GI) lesion resection provides prophylaxis for delayed bleeding. A rotatable, anchor-pronged through-the-scope endoscopic clip (TTSC) underwent limited prospective study since commercialization in the USA in 2022. Aims We prospectively studied 30-day delayed bleeding rates after prophylactic clip closure of lesions using the new TTSC. Methods We conducted a multicenter, prospective cohort study of the anchor-pronged MANTISTM clip (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA) used for prophylactic clipping after lesion resection at 10 sites in 6 countries (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05653843). Outcomes were 1) complete defect closure without delayed bleeding at the original resection site, 2) rate of delayed bleeding at the original resection site, defined as a severe bleeding event requiring hospitalization, blood transfusion (>5 units), or another invasive intervention ≤30 days after study clip placement, 3) rate of serious device or procedure-related adverse events (SAEs). Results Among 191 enrolled participants, the mean age was 65.4±12.2 (range 23-89) years, and 110 (57.6%) were male. Median maximum lesion diameter was 25.0 (range 5.0-100.0) mm. Of 199 attempted clipping procedures, 190 (95.5%) defects had complete closure without delayed bleeding at the original lesion site (Table). Delayed bleeding occurred in 1 (0.5%) patient by 30 days after the index procedure. Seven (3.7%) patients had at least one SAE, including bleeding (2 patients), perforation (1), aspiration (1), nausea (1), pneumoperitoneum (1), postpolypectomy syndrome (1). No SAEs were considered device-related. Conclusions A rotatable, anchor-pronged TTSC showed high rates of procedural completion and sustained lesion closure, and low rates of delayed bleeding or other SAEs by 30 days after the index procedure. Table. Main outcomes (N=199 lesions in 191 patients) *Bleeding SAEs within 7 days were counted as failures of the primary efficacy endpoint. Funding Agencies Boston Scientific Corporation
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".