The role of surgical intervention in the management of duodenal lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The role of surgical management in duodenal lymphoma is controversial due to the rarity of this tumor subtype. A retrospective review of a provincial cancer registry was performed to assess the rationale for surgical management in duodenal lymphoma. METHODS: Patient demographics, presentations, pathologies, surgical interventions, treatment, and associated disease-specific survival were assessed and descriptively presented. RESULTS: From 1985 to 2005, 23 patients (mean age 58 years [22-82]) were diagnosed. The most common histology was large B-cell lymphoma (74%). A significant proportion presented in a complicated fashion: obstruction (30%), perforation (17%), and hemorrhage (4%). Eight patients (35%) were treated with surgery alone, eight (35%) with surgery and chemotherapy, five (22%) with chemotherapy alone, and two (9%) with supportive care. Of those treated with surgery, indications were mostly emergent conditions including obstruction (58%), perforation (33%), and hemorrhage (8%). Overall median follow-up was 14 months (1-168 months) and overall median survival was 12 months (1-168 months). There were no significant differences in survival by histology, stage, or treatment type. CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy continues to represent the therapeutic mainstay for GI lymphomas. However, in duodenal lymphoma, a high proportion of patients require surgery mainly because of complicated presentations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".