Safety and Feasibility of Pancreaticoduodenectomy in the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) in patients older than 70 years old against a matched cohort of patients younger than 70. METHODS: A search of the department database revealed that 285 consecutive patients underwent PD from 1996 to 2009. Forty-one patients (14%) were identified to be older than 70 years (group 1), and they were matched with 41 patients younger than 70 (group 2) according to sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and tumor staging. Medical comorbidities, preoperative CA19-9 and hemoglobin levels, operative and histopathologic data, postoperative course, and survival outcomes were compared between the 2 groups of patients. RESULTS: Statistical analyses revealed no significant difference between the 2 groups, except for preoperative CA19-9 and hemoglobin levels, operating time, duration of hospitalization, and the number of lymph nodes removed. These parameters, however, did not have an impact on morbidity, mortality, and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our study, perioperative morbidity, mortality, and overall survival are not poorer in patients older than 70. Thus, PD should not be contraindicated solely on the basis of chronological age. Moreover, PD can be rationally proposed to patients meeting the "fit elderly" definition.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".