MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408757747 · doi:10.1016/j.vgie.2025.03.028

Identifying the impossible: piecemeal cold snare resection perforation

2025· article· en· W4408757747 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVideoGIE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerforationResectionSurgeryMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aim: Piecemeal cold snare resection (CSR) is an increasingly adopted technique for large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps because of its favorable safety profile. Although adverse events are rare, perforation after CSR has been reported infrequently. We present a video case of intraprocedural perforation during piecemeal CSR. Methods: A 63-year-old woman with quiescent colonic Crohn disease underwent dysplasia surveillance, revealing multiple flat polyps, including 2 adjacent large 0-IIA transverse colon polyps. Piecemeal CSR was performed using chromoinjectate and a 10-mm cold snare. Careful inspection of the resection base with submucosal chromoendoscopy revealed a type IV deep mural injury, despite the absence of electrocautery. The defect was closed using through-the-scope clips. The patient was observed and discharged with antibiotics, with no delayed adverse events at follow-up. Histopathology confirmed sessile serrated lesions without dysplasia. Conclusion: This case demonstrates that perforation, although rare, can occur during CSR. Endoscopists should perform meticulous resection base assessments, as the absence of cautery may obscure signs of deep mural injury.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.300 · 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