Aspiration in the Context of Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary aspiration is a life-threatening complication of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, the incidence of which has not been determined. Endoscopy-related aspiration has not been studied in procedures in which patients swallow a radiolabelled potential aspirate immediately before endoscopy and undergo nuclear scanning postprocedure. METHODS: A pilot study was conducted in which 200 MBq of nonabsorbable technetium-99m phytate in 10 mL of water was administered orally to 50 patients who were about to undergo endoscopy. Gamma camera images were obtained to ensure that there had been no aspiration before endoscopy. After endoscopy, a repeat scan was performed. Fluid aspirated through the endoscope was also collected and analyzed for radioactivity using a hand-held radiation monitor. RESULTS: No evidence of pulmonary aspiration was found in any of the patients studied. The mean estimated percentage of the initially administered radioactivity aspirated through the endoscope was 2.66% (range 0% to 10.3%). CONCLUSION: The present pilot study confirms earlier observations that clinically significant aspiration in the context of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is uncommon. The incidence of aspiration may, however, be different in acutely bleeding patients undergoing endoscopy. For logistic reasons, this group could not be studied.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".