[genewitch]

not who you asked but the perforation is 3-5 per 10,000; cardiovascular issues is 52 per 10,000, polyp removal carries risks of bleeding or perforation, and underlying patient physiology.

RESULTS Among the 30,818 records identified, 82 population-based studies from 24 countries were included, involving a total of 38.5 million colonoscopies. The estimated incidence per 10,000 colonoscopies was as follows: gastrointestinal AEs, including perforation (5.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.19-6.34, I2 = 99%), bleeding (18.39; 95% CI 13.53-24.99, I2 = 100%), and splenic injury (0.61; 95% CI 0.43-0.85, I2 = 93%); nongastrointestinal AEs, including cardiovascular events (52.11; 95% CI 18.67-144.59, I2 = 100%), respiratory events (4.26; 95% CI 0.73-24.99, I2 = 100%), and deaths related to colonoscopy (0.18; 95% CI 0.10-0.34, I2 = 74%). Subgroup analyses yielded partially divergent findings. The majority of the included studies exhibited a low to moderate risk of bias.

just ask any AI, i don't got time to play tic-tac-toe with the NIH.gov website gating me behind click bus images for 10 minutes

[bonsai_spool]

You are hardly describing "serious complications" ('bleeding', and 'respiratory events' are very non specific, and the fact that this is an uncited meta-analysis across nations makes the whole enterprise suspect), even less so since your source averages 24 countries while we are speaking about US colonoscopy recommendations.

My source is not seeing one perforation each week at work.

> just ask any AI

These do not give reliable answers, as I am sure you know

[genewitch]

they give citations which i was going through and literally copied and pasted the CITE to you, not the AI.

i only answered the specific question of where the number "48" or the range 40-80 came from.

my cite even shows perforations are 3-5 per 10000 so i don't know what you're on me about

[bonsai_spool]

> they give citations which i was going through

Yes, I am sure. Do send the actual citations.

> my cite even shows perforations are 3-5 per 10000

An implausible number for humans who have actual, non-LLM experience in this area

[genewitch]

my EXPLICIT SOURCE was 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003429 do you require other ones, or do you wanna keep harping on the fact i used LLM as a fucking search engine?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2779987 3.5 per 10,000

take it up with JAMA and the AJG.

do you do SCREENING or DIAGNOSTIC/POLYP REMOVAL?

because there's a difference. And it has nothing to do whether i use google.com or chat.whatever.com to find that out.

[bonsai_spool]

> do you wanna keep harping on the fact i used LLM as a fucking search engine?

You didn't give me a source before now, so I unfortunately had no other source to challenge except the LLM!

> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2779987 3.5 per 10,000

Different source, friend. Please note that they say 3.1, not 3.5.

That is at about 25% less than 4 (and even less than 5, let alone your previous assertions). And if either you or your LLM troubled yourself to read the article, even this is a confounded number in that we cannot determine whether low-volume, 'community' operators are worse than high-volume settings.

> do you do SCREENING or DIAGNOSTIC/POLYP REMOVAL?

We are talking about screening—once you have a target to remove, you are looking at a high-likelihood-of-cancer population. I am fully aware of this, so I don't understand why you are bringing up this difference which has not yet figured into our discussion. Is this something your LLM suggested to you?

---

I think the thing to take away is that LLMs do not yet replace human understanding and discretion.

[genewitch]

we're both being jerks, so let's both stop. Me first. Sorry. the AJG paper shows 5.15 (the meta study) and JAMA shows 3.1

those two numbers fall within the range of "3 - 5 per 10,000"

the thing in the first sentence of my reply is called a DOI, it's a document identifier, that you can type into google or bing and it will pull up the correct journal citation i was citing.

I understand that the JAMA paper said 3.1, but it also said a number almost 5 times higher near there for "major complication", separate from perforation.

My original reply, where i did the > block quote, is from the AJG source; 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003429

And, for all we know someone is using a roto-rooter to perform colonoscopies and throwing the statistics off