MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407285085 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwae059.099

A99 INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PASSES FOR ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND-GUIDED FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION BIOPSY OF SOLID MASS LESIONS – A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE TO IMPROVE DIAGNOSTIC YIELD

2025· article· en· W4407285085 on OpenAlexafffund
Gurpal Sandha, Shahid Khan, Pamela Mathura, Lakshmi Puttagunta, S. Girgis, Aducio Thiesen, J Zhang, Jan Nilsson, S Wasilenko, Sergio Zepeda-Gómez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
FundersSickkids Research InstituteCentre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-JustineHospital for Sick ChildrenQueen's UniversityWomen's College HospitalBC Children's Hospital
KeywordsEndoscopic ultrasoundMedicineFine-needle aspirationRadiologyYield (engineering)BiopsyQuality (philosophy)Medical physicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A retrospective chart audit (01/2022-12/2022) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of solid mass lesions revealed a disappointing diagnostic yield of 56% with a single needle pass. To improve this, a quality improvement (QI) intervention where endoscopists (three) were encouraged to perform three needle passes per patient was developed and trialed. Aims To assess intervention impact on improving the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNAB of solid mass lesions over a 9-month study period. Methods A chart audit was completed quarterly for all patients undergoing EUS-FNAB of solid mass lesions from 01/2024-09/2024. Descriptive statistics were completed. Only a definite diagnosis, as confirmed on histological examination, was considered when calculating the diagnostic yield. Results A total of 183 patients (112 M, 71 F), mean age 63±13 years (range 12-88 years), underwent 198 EUS-FNABs by 3 endoscopists over 9 months. A single pass with an FNAB needle was undertaken in 36/198 cases (18%). The diagnostic yield was 20/36 (56%), similar to the pre-intervention year. The solid mass lesions targeted were pancreas (16), lymph nodes (12), subepithelial (3), rectal and retro-peritoneal (2 each), and ampulla (1). One endoscopist performed 25/36 cases (69%) whereas the other two performed 11/36 (31%) and 0/36 cases. Proximity to vasculature and technical difficulty were reasons provided in 11 and 1 case(s), respectively, whereas no reason was documented in 24 cases. There was no difference in these variables between the groups with a definite diagnosis (20/36) vs. those without (16/36). After the first quarter audit, the need to avoid a single needle-pass was reinforced. Figure 1 shows the trend of single vs. 3 or more needle passes for the pre-intervention vs. the post-intervention year. There is a trend towards performing fewer single needle passes (39 pre vs. 36 post) and increasing 3 or more needle passes (25 pre vs. 68 post). This was associated with an improvement in diagnostic yield in the pre (22/39 [56%] vs. 21/25 [84%]) vs. post groups (20/36 [56%] vs. 61/68 [90%]). Conclusions Education, regular audit, and continued reinforcement has demonstrated an improvement in the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNAB by increasing the number of needle passes to 3 or more for solid mass lesions. Funding Agencies None

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207