Perforated esophageal intervention focus (PERF) study: a multi-center examination of contemporary treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment of esophageal perforation (EP) remains a significant clinical challenge. While a number of investigators have previously documented efficient approaches, these were mostly single-center experiences reported prior to the introduction of newer technologies: specifically endoluminal stents. This study was designed to document contemporary practice in the diagnosis and management of EP at multiple institutions around the world and includes early clinical outcomes. A five-year (2009-2013) multicenter retrospective review of management and outcomes for patients with thoracic or abdominal esophageal perforation was conducted. Demographics, etiology, diagnostic modalities, treatments, subsequent early outcomes as well as morbidity and mortality were captured and analyzed. During the study period, 199 patients from 10 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe were identified. Mechanisms of perforation included Boerhaave syndrome (60, 30.1%), iatrogenic injury (65, 32.6%), and penetrating trauma (25, 12.6%). Perforation was isolated to the thoracic segment alone in 124 (62.3%), with 62 (31.2%) involving the thoracoabdominal esophagus. Mean perforation length was 2.5 cm. Observation was selected as initial management in 65 (32.7%), with only two failures. Direct operative intervention was initial management in 65 patients (32.6%), while 29 (14.6%) underwent esophageal stent coverage. Compared to operative intervention, esophageal stent patients were significantly more likely to be older (61.3 vs. 48.3 years old, P < 0.001) and have sustained iatrogenic mechanisms of esophageal perforation (48.3% vs.15.4%). Secondary intervention requirement for patients with perforation was 33.7% overall (66). Complications included sepsis (56, 28.1%), pneumonia (34, 17.1%) and multi-organ failure (23, 11.6%). Overall mortality was 15.1% (30). In contemporary practice, diagnostic and management approaches to esophageal perforation vary widely. Despite the introduction of endoluminal strategies, it continues to carry a high risk of mortality, morbidity, and need for secondary intervention. A concerted multi-institutional, prospectively collected database is ideal for further investigation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".