A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of covered expandable metal stents in the palliation of malignant esophageal obstruction at the gastroesophageal junction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Palliation of malignant esophageal obstruction is an important clinical problem. Expandable metal stents are a major advance in therapy, but many stents become obstructed because of tumor ingrowth. The aim of this study was to compare a new, membrane-covered expandable metal stent to conventional prostheses in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with malignant inoperable esophageal obstruction at the gastroesophageal junction participated in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to covered or uncovered stents. The principal outcome measure was the need for reintervention because of recurrent dysphagia or migration. Secondary endpoints were relief of dysphagia measured by a dysphagia score (grade 0 = no dysphagia, grade 1 = able to eat solid food, grade 2 = semisolids only, grade 3 = liquids only, grade 4 = complete dysphagia) and the rate of complications and functional status. All patients were observed at monthly intervals until death or for 6 months. RESULTS: One week after stenting the dysphagia score improved significantly in both the uncovered (n = 32, 3 +/- 0.1 to 1 +/- 0.1 [means +/- SEMs], p < 0.001) and covered (n = 30, 3 +/- 0.1 to 1 +/- 0.2 [means +/- SEMs], p < 0.001) stents. Obstructing tumor ingrowth was significantly more likely in the uncovered stent group (9/30) than in the covered group (1/32) (p = 0.005). Significant stent migration occurred in 2/30 patients with uncovered stents, as compared with 4/32 patients in the covered group (p = 0.44). Reinterventions for tumor ingrowth were significantly greater in the uncovered stent group (27%), as compared with 0% in the covered group (p = 0.002). Life table analysis showed similar survival in both groups. CONCLUSION: Membrane-covered stents have significantly better palliation than conventional bare metal stents because of decreased rates of tumor ingrowth that necessitate endoscopic reintervention for dysphagia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".