Reproducibility of Wireless Capsule Endoscopy in the Investigation of Chronic Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a valuable tool in the diagnostic evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, but limited information is available on the reproducibility of CE findings. OBJECTIVE: To compare two successive CE studies with push enteroscopy (PE) in patients presenting with chronic obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted. Ten patients (seven men and three women) with chronic obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and no contraindications for CE were eligible and completed the trial. For each patient, the first capsule was administered on day 1, the second capsule was administered on day 2 and PE was performed on day 3. Endoscopists were blinded to the capsule findings. Capsule findings were assessed independently by two investigators blinded to PE findings. RESULTS: A potential small intestinal bleeding source was found in 60% of the patients when all the studies were combined. A bleeding source was found in four patients in both CE studies. The second CE also identified a bleeding source in a fifth patient. Interobserver agreement by kappa analysis was 0.642 to 1.000 (P < or 05) for the CE studies. PE identified a potential small bowel bleeding site in four patients, including one patient who had negative CE studies. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the reproducibility of CE findings on successive studies. Some patients did not have a source of bleeding in the small intestine, and all studies found this.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.057 | 0.222 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".