Self‐Expandable Metallic Stents in Nonmalignant Large Airway Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airway self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) were initially studied in malignant airway obstruction; however, their use in benign airway diseases has become progressively more frequent. This may be explained by their ease of insertion compared with silicone stents, which require rigid bronchoscopy for insertion. While initial experience with SEMS in benign disease suggested efficacy and promising short-term safety profile, long-term follow-up revealed significant complication rates. In addition to a high complication rate, the management of these complications is made more difficult by the semipermanent nature of these devices. Reported complications include infection, granulation tissue formation, stent migration, stent fracture, airway perforation and fistula formation, as well as extension of the initial injury, potentially eliminating other therapeutic options such as surgical resection. Therefore, SEMS should only be used in nonmalignant large airway disease as a last resort for patients in whom other endoscopic methods, including silicone stents and dilations, as well as surgical options have failed or are technically not feasible.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".