Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Case-Matched Studies Comparing Open and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy
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
OBJECTIVES: Distal pancreatectomies and enucleations have become the most popular laparoscopic pancreatic resections and in some centers outnumber the traditional open approach. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the safety of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP) in relation to open distal pancreatectomies in the management of adult patients and, where possible, perform a meta-analysis of reported outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of knowledge, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the following keywords: pancreas, pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy. Publication dates and language restrictions were applied. The Newcastle Ottawa scale was used for study quality assessment. RESULTS: Four eligible studies were identified with a total of 665 patients. On average, LDPs had a longer operation time by 17.7 minutes (9.5%) and a reduced hospital stay by 2.7 days. Morbidity and mortality were low using both approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the strongest evidence (level 3a) to date that LDPs are a safe operation. However, there is still a need for randomized controlled trials to confirm this.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.035 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it