Presentation, treatment and outcome in patients with ampullary tumours
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
BACKGROUND: Ampullary tumours are relatively rare, and few large single-centre reports provide information on their treatment and outcome. The aim of this study was to analyse outcome and determine predictors of survival for patients with ampullary tumours treated in a specialist centre. METHODS: Over an 11-year period, 561 patients were treated for periampullary tumours, 88 of whom had a histologically proven ampullary neoplasm. Prospectively gathered data were analysed to assess predictors of survival. RESULTS: The overall resection rate was 92 per cent; there were no postoperative deaths. Median survival was 45.8 months for patients with resectable tumours and 8.0 months for those with irresectable disease (P < 0.001). On univariate analysis, age less than 70 years (P = 0.015) and a bilirubin level of 75 micromol/l or less (P = 0.012) favoured long-term survival. Among 70 patients who underwent cancer resection, factors associated with significantly worse long-term survival on univariate analysis included poorly differentiated tumour (P < 0.001), positive nodes (P < 0.001), perineural invasion (P = 0.001) and invasion of the pancreas (P = 0.018). Multivariate analysis identified positive nodes and bilirubin concentration as independent predictors of survival. CONCLUSION: An aggressive surgical approach to ampullary tumours is justified by the low proportion of benign lesions, the absence of postoperative mortality and improved long-term survival.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it