| > 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. |
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