MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W56763841 · doi:10.1155/2003/309532

A New Method of Enteroscopy–The Double-Balloon Method

2003· article· en· W56763841 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hironori Yamamoto, Kentaro Sugano

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnteroscopyEndoscopeMedicineInflatableBalloonLaparotomyDouble-balloon enteroscopyURETEROSCOPEPeristalsisScope (computer science)Computer scienceSurgeryRadiologyEndoscopyAnatomyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the small intestine have been impeded by difficult technical challenges. Traditionally, endoscopic evaluation of this organ has required open laparotomy with the surgically assisted passage of the scope through the intestine. Nonsurgical endoscopic techniques have been developed, including push enteroscopy, passage of a scope over a guide-string, and a method that depends on peristalsis to advance the instrument, but each of these is subject to severe limitations. A novel procedure has been devised, whereby an endoscope and a soft flexible overtube, each of which has an inflatable balloon attached to its distal end, are employed together. The technique is described in detail in the present article. Double-balloon enteroscopy allows visualization of the entire small intestine, to and fro examination of an area of interest, and the taking of biopsy specimens in a manner that is safer, quicker and less painful than previous techniques. It constitutes an important advance in the diagnosis and management of bleeding and other small intestinal disorders.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations170
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207