MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407954607 · doi:10.3390/children12030291

Cold Snare Polypectomy in Pediatric Polyposis: A Multicenter Experience

2025· article· en· W4407954607 on OpenAlexaff
Hunter Friesen, Thomas M. Attard, Andrew Liman, Osamu Winget Yasui, Catharine M. Walsh, Roberto Gugig, Monique T. Barakat

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersChildren's Mercy Hospital
KeywordsMedicinePolypectomyColonoscopyAdverse effectSurgeryIntubationDemographicsRetrospective cohort studyMulticenter studyColorectal cancerInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a well-established and recommended technique in adult gastroenterology for the safe, efficient and complete removal of nonpedunculated lesions up to 10 mm, with piecemeal excision possible for larger lesions. However, the application of CSP in pediatric patients remains underexplored. This study summarizes a multicenter experience of CSP in pediatric polyposis patients, focusing on safety, efficacy and clinical outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at two pediatric tertiary centers, encompassing patients aged 1 to 21 years with polyposis who underwent colonoscopy with CSP and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) between January 2022 and January 2023. Patient demographics, procedure characteristics, polyp details and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: A total of 477 CSPs were performed in 63 colonoscopies. Satisfactory bowel preparation was noted in 79% of procedures, with a pooled mean procedure duration of 52 min and cecal intubation achieved in 98%. Polyps resected by CSP ranged from 3 to 70 mm in size and were predominantly left-sided. Tissue retrieval was complete in 94% of cases and partial in 5%. Mild intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 25% of CSP cases, requiring endoclip placement in 19%, with no post-procedural bleeding or significant complications observed. Comparatively, CSP demonstrated favorable bleeding rates relative to HSP. At two-week follow-up, four patients required emergency evaluation for unrelated complaints, but with no adverse events attributed to CSP. Conclusions: CSP is a safe and effective technique for the removal of sessile polyps in pediatric patients with polyposis. Mild intraprocedural bleeding, when observed, was effectively managed with standard hemostatic techniques. These findings support the potential of CSP as a preferred modality for sessile polyp removal in pediatric patients, though further research is warranted to define its role across broader pediatric populations and practice settings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildrenSame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207