A unified latent variable model for contrastive opinion mining

There are large and growing textual corpora in which people express contrastive opinions about the same topic. This has led to an increasing number of studies about contrastive opinion mining. However, there are several notable issues with the existing studies. They mostly focus on mining contrastive opinions from multiple data collections, which need to be separated into their respective collections beforehand. In addition, existing models are opaque in terms of the relationship between topics that are extracted and the sentences in the corpus which express the topics; this opacity does not help us understand the opinions expressed in the corpus. Finally, contrastive opinion is mostly analysed qualitatively rather than quantitatively. This paper addresses these matters and proposes a novel unified latent variable model (contraLDA), which: mines contrastive opinions from both single and multiple data collections, extracts the sentences that project the contrastive opinion, and measures the strength of opinion contrastiveness towards the extracted topics. Experimental results show the effectiveness of our model in mining contrasted opinions, which outperformed our baselines in extracting coherent and informative sentiment-bearing topics. We further show the accuracy of our model in classifying topics and sentiments of textual data, and we compared our results to five strong baselines

"Otherwise … he will be a beggar": a focus group study to understand the Perspectives of physiotherapists about measuring rehabilitation outcomes and impact in low-resource and conflict-affected settings.

Rehabilitation outcomes are important for patients, professionals and policy makers. Most outcome measures (OMs) were developed for "Western" contexts and may be inadequate for low-resource and conflict settings, where the ability to demonstrate impact would be critical to strengthening the sector. This study aims to understand perspectives of physiotherapists from challenging environments regarding current practices, value, barriers, and facilitators of measuring rehabilitation outcomes. Focus group discussions were held in English with 35 physiotherapists from 18 countries. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, anonymised, and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four themes emerged illustrating the levels at which outcomes and measures were discussed: User (patients, families), provider (physiotherapists, rehabilitation workers), application (OMs), and structure (management, health system). Participants discussed diversity in current practices and patient populations, utility of OMs and a neglected rehabilitation sector lacking investment. Barriers to progressing outcome measurement included lacking patient health literacy, rehabilitation provider training, valid OMs, and leadership. Participants suggested improved patient involvement, routine outcome measurement by using, developing, or adapting simple, context- and stakeholder-relevant OMs, and support from management. These insights illustrate the need of and provide robust recommendations for context-adapted development of rehabilitation outcome measurement in various challenging contexts

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of polyps involving the appendiceal orifice: a multicenter international experience

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice remains a challenge. We aimed to report outcomes with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for the resection of appendiceal lesions and identify factors associated with the occurrence of appendicitis. METHODS: This was a retrospective study at 18 tertiary-care centers (USA 12, Canada 1, Europe 5) between November 2016 and August 2020. Consecutive patients who underwent resection of an appendiceal orifice lesion using the FTRD were included. The primary outcome was the rate of R0 resection in neoplastic lesions, defined as negative lateral and deep margins on post-resection histologic evaluation. Secondary outcomes included the rates of: technical success (en bloc resection), clinical success (technical success without need for further surgical intervention), post-resection appendicitis, and polyp recurrence. RESULTS: 66 patients (32 women; mean age 64) underwent resection of colonic lesions involving the appendiceal orifice (mean [standard deviation] size, 14.5 (6.2) mm), with 40 (61 %) being deep, extending into the appendiceal lumen. Technical success was achieved in 59/66 patients (89 %), of which, 56 were found to be neoplastic lesions on post-resection pathology. Clinical success was achieved in 53/66 (80 %). R0 resection was achieved in 52/56 (93 %). Of the 58 patients in whom EFTR was completed who had no prior history of appendectomy, appendicitis was reported in 10 (17 %), with six (60 %) requiring surgical appendectomy. Follow-up colonoscopy was completed in 41 patients, with evidence of recurrence in five (12 %). CONCLUSIONS: The FTRD is a promising non-surgical alternative for resecting appendiceal lesions, but appendicitis occurs in 1/6 cases

A large multicenter cohort on the use of full-thickness resection device for difficult colonic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Introduction of the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) has allowed endoscopic resection of difficult lesions such as those with deep wall origin/infiltration or those located in difficult anatomic locations. The aim of this study is to assess the outcomes of the FTRD among its early users in the USA. METHODS: Patients who underwent endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for lower gastrointestinal tract lesions using the FTRD at 26 US tertiary care centers between 10/2017 and 12/2018 were included. Primary outcome was R0 resection rate. Secondary outcomes included rate of technical success (en bloc resection), achievement of histologic full-thickness resection (FTR), and adverse events (AE). RESULTS: A total of 95 patients (mean age 65.5 ± 12.6 year, 38.9% F) were included. The most common indication, for use of FTRD, was resection of difficult adenomas (non-lifting, recurrent, residual, or involving appendiceal orifice/diverticular opening) (66.3%), followed by adenocarcinomas (22.1%), and subepithelial tumors (SET) (11.6%). Lesions were located in the proximal colon (61.1%), distal colon (18.9%), or rectum (20%). Mean lesion diameter was 15.5 ± 6.4 mm and 61.1% had a prior resection attempt. The mean total procedure time was 59.7 ± 31.8 min. R0 resection was achieved in 82.7% while technical success was achieved in 84.2%. Histologically FTR was demonstrated in 88.1% of patients. There were five clinical AE (5.3%) with 2 (2.1%) requiring surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this first US multicenter study suggest that EFTR with the FTRD is a technically feasible, safe, and effective technique for resecting difficult colonic lesions