MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411197003 · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2025.05.034

Safety and efficacy of margin and base ablation after endoscopic mucosal resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: a prospective multicenter study

2025· article· en· W4411197003 on OpenAlexaff
Edgard Medawar, Mahsa Taghiakbari, Roupen Djinbachian, Neal Shahidi, John M. Levenick, Jeffrey D. Mosko, Eric W.‐F. Lam, Christopher Teshima, Matthew T. Moyer, Simon Bouchard, Érik Deslandres, Heiko Pohl, Victoire Michal, Daniel von Renteln

Bibliographic record

VenueGastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Paul's HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic mucosal resectionColorectal PolypMargin (machine learning)Prospective cohort studyRectal PolypAblationResectionRadiofrequency ablationGeneral surgerySurgeryColorectal cancerInternal medicineColonoscopyRectumCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EMR is the mainstay of therapy for large colorectal polyps. A previous study has shown low adverse events and recurrence rates after EMR with margin and selective base ablation using hybrid argon plasma coagulation. We were interested in evaluating the safety and efficacy of EMR with systematic margin, complete base, and vessel ablation in a multicenter prospective setting. METHODS: Adults (18-89 years) undergoing EMR of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were enrolled consecutively in a prospective multicenter study. Patients received, after EMR completion, systematic ablation of the postresection margin, the complete base, and any visible vessels, without defect clipping. The co-primary outcomes were adverse events within 30 days, including severe postendoscopic bleeding, defined as requiring hospitalization, transfusion, colonoscopy, or surgery, and the proportion of local recurrence at the first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1), based on image-enhanced endoscopy and biopsies of the scar and on histology of resected visible recurrences. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four patients with 179 EMRs were included and completed SC1. Base ablation was performed in 167 (93.3%), and vessels were present and ablated in 116 (64.8%). Severe postendoscopic bleeding occurred in 2.2% (95% CI, 0.6-5.6), all in proximal polyps that were not clipped. Postprocedural perforation occurred in 0.6% (95% CI, 0.0-3.1), and postpolypectomy syndrome occurred in 1.7% (95% CI, 0.3-4.8). At SC1, performed at median 5.5 months, all 179 polyp sites were identified, and the proportion of local recurrence was 2.2% (95% CI, 0.6-5.6). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective multicenter study, EMR with systematic ablation of the complete postresection base and visible vessels in addition to margin ablation demonstrated high technical success, low adverse events, and low recurrences. A randomized controlled trial is needed to compare the safety and efficacy of systematic base and margin ablation to margin ablation only.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.279
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 venueGastrointestinal EndoscopySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207