Surgery of upper GI gastrointestinal stromal tumors: our experience, prognostic analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To review our treatment experience of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) of the upper gastrointestinal tract and identify the prognostic factors that influence tumor recurrence. METHODOLOGY: Data of 46 consecutive patients with upper GI GISTs who underwent surgery from 1988 to 2011 were reviewed. The overall and disease-free survival rates and influence of clinicopathologic variables on disease-free survival rate were evaluated. RESULTS: The median age was 64 years (range, 20-86 years). R0 resections were performed in 43 (93.5%) patients. With a median follow-up time of 33 months (1-275 months), there were 5 (10.9%) recurrences and 2 mortalities in the high-risk group. The overall survival and recurrence-free survival rates at 5 years were 92.1% and 84.6%, respectively. Male gender, tumor size of >10 cm, high numbers of mitotic figures, R1 resection, high risk according to the Joensuu criteria, and a Ki-67 index of >10% were associated with a poor prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection of low- and intermediate-risk GISTs has excellent results. High counts of mitotic figures, male gender, incomplete resection, large tumor size, and a high Ki-67 index are associated with a poor prognosis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".