MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024625994 · doi:10.4253/wjge.v6.i3.60

Minireview on laparoscopic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery

2014· review· en· W2024625994 on OpenAlex
Clara Tan-Tam

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeneral surgeryLaparoscopyPancreaticoduodenectomyLaparoscopic surgeryCholecystectomySurgeryHepatocellular carcinomaPancreatectomyResectionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed in the mid-1980s. Since then, laparoscopic surgery has continued to gain prominence in numerous fields, and has, in some fields, replaced open surgery as the preferred operative technique. The role of laparoscopy in staging cancer is controversial, with regards to gallbladder carcinoma, pancreatic carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver metastasis from colorectal carcinoma, laparoscopy in conjunction with intraoperative ultrasound has prevented nontherapeutic operations, and facilitated therapeutic operations. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred option in the management of gallbladder disease. Meta-analyses comparing laparoscopic to open distal pancreatectomy show that laparoscopic pancreatectomy is safe and efficacious in the management of benign and malignant disease, and have better patient outcomes. A pancreaticoduodenectomy is a more complex operation and the laparoscopic technique is not feasible for this operation at this time. Robotic assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy has been tried with limited success at this time, but with continuing advancement in this field, this operation would eventually be feasible. Liver resection remains to be the best management for hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma and colorectal liver metastases. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic liver resections result in patients with equal or less blood loss and shorter hospital stays, as compared to open surgery. With improving equipment and technique, and the incorporation of robotic surgery, minimally invasive liver resection operative times will improve and be more efficacious. With the incorporation of robotic surgery into hepatobiliary surgery, donor hepatectomies have also been completed with success. The management of benign and malignant disease with minimally invasive hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery is safe and efficacious.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it