Planned<i>versus</i>unplanned portal vein resections during pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of portal vein (PV) involvement by pancreatic adenocarcinoma during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of unplanned and planned PV resections as part of PD. METHODS: An analysis of PD over 11 years was performed. Patients who had undergone PV resection (PV-PD) were identified, and categorized into those who had undergone planned or unplanned resection. Postoperative and oncological outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Of 249 patients who underwent PD for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, 66 (26·5 per cent) had PV-PD, including 27 (41 per cent) planned and 39 (59 per cent) unplanned PV resections. Twenty-five of 27 planned PV resections were circumferential PV-PD, whereas 25 of 39 unplanned PV resections were partial PV-PD. Planned PV resections were performed in slightly younger patients (mean(s.d.) 60(9) versus 65(10) years; P = 0·031), and associated with longer operating times (mean(s.d.) 602(131) versus 458(83) min; P < 0·001) and more major complications (26 versus 5 per cent; P = 0·026). Planned PV resections were associated with a lower rate of positive margins (4 versus 44 per cent; P < 0·001) despite being carried out for larger tumours (mean(s.d.) 3·9(1·4) versus 2·9(1·0) cm; P = 0·002). There was no difference in survival between the two groups (P = 0·998). On multivariable analysis, margin status was a significant predictor of survival. CONCLUSION: Although planned PV resections for pancreatic adenocarcinoma were associated with higher rates of postoperative morbidity than unplanned resections, R0 resection rates were better.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it