MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414050133 · doi:10.1093/dote/doaf061.021

165. RISK STRATIFICATION FOR STRICTURE FORMATION AFTER ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION FOR ESOPHAGEAL DYSPLASIA

2025· article· en· W4414050133 on OpenAlexaff
Youstina Hanna, Kareem Khalaf, Huaqi Li, T Nishimura, Natalia Causada Calo, Gary R. May, Christopher Teshima, Jeffrey D. Mosko

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Esophagus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEsophageal strictureEndoscopic submucosal dissectionLesionEsophagectomyDysplasiaRetrospective cohort studyUnivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly employed for early esophageal dysplasia, including squamous cell (SCD) and Barrett’s esophagus-related (BE) dysplasia. A major drawback of this strategy is stricture formation, which can lead to significant morbidity and require repeated interventions. We aimed to evaluate demographic, clinical, procedural, and histopathologic factors associated with stricture development following esophageal ESD. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study, analyzing data from 126 patients undergoing ESD for esophageal lesions from 2019–2024. Of these, 18 were excluded from follow-up due adverse pathology prompting esophagectomy (15 patients) or loss to follow-up (3 patients), resulting in 108 patients for analysis. Among these, 20 (18.52%) had SCD, and 88 (81.48%) had BE dysplasia. Demographic data, comorbidities, lesion characteristics, procedure details, postprocedural management and histopathological findings were collected. The primary outcome was stricture formation, defined as a symptomatic luminal narrowing at the ESD site confirmed on follow-up endoscopy, requiring intervention. Results Strictures developed in 24% of patients; 85% were impassable with a 9.9 mm gastroscope. Stricture rates increased with defect circumferential involvement, >90% (42%). On univariate analysis, BE was associated with lower stricture formation (OR0.30, 95% CI 0.11–0.81). Lesion size (OR1.21), lesion circumferential involvement (OR 1.03), defect size (OR1.16), defect circumferential involvement (OR1.05), deep mural injury (OR 9.29), clips to treat a DMI (OR 9.29), and length of hospitalization (OR 2.04) were associated with increased stricture rates. Independent predictors included defect circumferential involvement (OR 1.07, 95%CI 1.03–1.12), LOH (OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.11–3.16), and DMI (OR 6.28, 95%CI 1.10–35.88). Conclusion Stricture formation post-ESD is strongly associated with lesion and procedural characteristics, including defect circumferential involvement, deep mural injury and length of hospitalization. These findings showcase the importance of individualized risk stratification to guide tailored prophylactic and therapeutic strategies. Aggressive use of interventions, such as prophylactic steroids or other adjunctive measures, based on specific risk factors, may help mitigate the risk of stricture formation and improve patient outcomes in those at highest risk.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the EsophagusSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207