A138 EVALUATING THE ACCEPTABILITY AND EFFICACY OF CYTOSPONGE FOR BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS: A SINGLE CENTRE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Barrett’s Esophagus (BE) is a pre-malignant condition defined by the presence of metaplastic columnar epithelial cells above the gastroesophageal junction. Once metaplasia is present, there is a 0.5% annual risk of progression to dysplasia and ultimately adenocarcinoma. Cytosponge is a new device and technique to diagnose BE. Furthermore, this test has a strong safety profile. Research showed increased patient tolerance for the Cytosponge compared to endoscopy; however, this has not been demonstrated in a Canadian setting. Ideally, patient acceptability of Cytosponge device should be evaluated before its integration in a Canadian context. Aims To assess patient acceptability, tolerability and integration of Cytosponge in the diagnosis of Barrett’s Esophagus in a Canadian healthcare setting. We also assessed the ease of use and familiarity with Cytosponge. Methods A single-centre, prospective cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the acceptability and comfort of patients undergoing Cytosponge procedure. Outpatients referred for EGD for Barrett’s Esophagus at St. Paul’s Hospital between 03/21-08/24 were included. 74 patients with BE have been enrolled in this project. Acceptability was evaluated through Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Impact of Events Scale (IOES) on the day of procedure, day 7, and day 90 post-procedure. Data from health care providers administering the Cytosponge were collected using the System Usability Scale (SUS). One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference tests were completed to assess score differences between follow-ups. Results A total of 74 patients met the inclusion criteria and consented. 89.2% were successful in swallowing Cytosponge, 10.8% were unsuccessful. ANOVA test were statistically significant in VAS scores between day 0 and day 7, day 0 and day 90 with a p-value 0.006 and 0.00005 respectively. Average STAI scores pre- and post-Cytosponge were 41.7 (SD 3.1) and 40.7 (SD 4.4), ANOVA analysis of STAI scores between groups showed no statistical significance. The average IOES score at day 0 was 1.7 (SD 3.4), day 7 1.1, and day 90 0.7. There was no statistically significant difference in IOES scores at follow-up. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that Cytosponge is well tolerated in a Canadian healthcare setting. Average STAI and IOES scores were comparable at follow up. Additionally they were not statistically significant suggesting that patients found Cytosponge an acceptable. A score of 68 and above is above average on SUS which measures usability of Cytosponge. The average SUS score in this sample was 55.2 this suggests that there is a learning curve for healthcare providers to become familiar with Cytosponge. There were no complications with Cytosponge in this sample. Expanded and retrieved Cytosponge device Funding Agencies Gastroenterology Institute of Research Institute
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".