Perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background-Aims: Perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy either under normothermia during the early postoperative period (EPIC) or intraoperatively combined with heat (HIPEC) has been shown to improve survival after radical resection of advanced gastric cancer. The purpose of the study is to compare the effect of EPIC and HIPEC in patients undergoing D 2 gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer. Patients-Methods: Patients that received EPIC after D 2 gastrectomy were retrospectively compared to those that received HIPEC after D 2 gastrectomy. The end point of the study was the assessment of survival, and recurrences. Results: The groups were comparable for age, gender, performance status, tumor anatomic distribution, stage, degree of differentiation, Lauren classification, hospital mortality, morbidity, and type of surgery. 5-year survival rate for HIPEC group was 68% and for EPIC group was 14% ( p =0.0054).The recurrence rate in EPIC group was 57.9% and in HIPEC group 17.4% ( p =0.001). Conclusions: Patients with advanced gastric cancer undergoing D 2 gastrectomy in combination with HIPEC have improved survival and lower recurrence rate as compared to those undergoing D 2 gastrectomy in combination with EPIC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".