MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407285169 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwae059.048

A48 PATIENT OUTCOMES OF A COMPLEX POLYP ASSESSEMNT COMMITTEE IMPLEMENTATION

2025· article· en· W4407285169 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter Gallagher, Harrison Petropolis, M Stewart, Shivam Patel, Davide Farina, Ali Kohansal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Over the past two decades, the endoscopic approach to managing complex colonic polyps has shifted from surgery to advanced endoscopic techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection. Endoscopic methods are less invasive than surgery, reducing morbidity, mortality, and cost, but require additional time, training, and expertise. Despite guidelines recommending EMR as the first line option, surgical resection for complex non-invasive polyps remains common in Canada. A 2019 retrospective study revealed that 12.5% of large non-malignant polyps in Nova Scotia were treated with surgical resection. Subsequently, a Complex Polyp Assessment Committee (CxPAC) was established to assess polyps suitable for endoscopic resection, aiming to reduce unnecessary surgical procedures. Aims The project aims to examine the early outcomes of programmatic assessment and management of complex colorectal polyps though CxPAC. Methods A retrospective chart review was completed on all patients referred to Nova Scotia’s CxPAC between January 2022 and February 2024. Descriptive statics were calculated. Results In a 24-month study period, 99 patients were referred to the CxPAC, with 88 suitable for complex polypectomy. Among the 10 patients not deemed appropriate for the procedure, 7 were directed to surgery prior to any endoscopic intervention. The referral indication was polyp size (65.7%), size with challenging position (16.2%), challenging position alone (6.1%), residual/recurrent polyp (7.1%), and scarring/poor lift (5.1%). The mean patient age was 66 (SD, 12), and the mean polyp size was 37mm (SD, 17). There were 18 patients referred for surgical management: 2 based on referral image review, 10 after endoscopic or post-resection pathology appearance positive for invasive carcinoma, 1 after perforation, and 5 after incomplete resection. Follow-up endoscopies have been performed on 61 patients. Among the 40 patients deemed clear during follow-up endoscopy, 8 did not have a biopsy at the polypectomy site. Of the 32 patients who did undergo biopsies, 20 exhibited normal mucosa, 8 showed reactive changes/scarring post-polypectomy, 2 were diagnosed with tubular adenomas, 1 with a sessile serrated adenoma, and 1 with a hyperplastic polyp. There were 9 instances of severe adverse events related to complex polypectomy: 5 cases of post-polypectomy bleeding, 2 perforations, and 2 emergency department visits due to abdominal pain. Conclusions The CxPAC has been effective for assessing and managing complex non-malignant colonic polyps, with 88.6% of patients able to avoid surgery. While endoscopic resection of complex polyps is a safer alternative to surgery, procedural risks remain, highlighting the importance of additional training on the part of the endoscopists and a detailed discussion and consent process with the patients. 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→