MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of covered expandable metal stents in the palliation of malignant esophageal obstruction at the gastroesophageal junction

2001· article· en· W1968322944 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsWellesley Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDysphagiaStentSurgeryRandomized controlled trialProspective cohort studyEsophagusEsophageal diseaseRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it