Current Opinion on Preservation of the Pylorous in Pancreato-Duodenectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pyloric preservation as modification to standard Whipple procedure was introduced to prevent the complications of gastrectomy ensuring better gastrointestinal function. It was initially established as the operation of choice for chronic pancreatitis but remained debatable in case of malignancy, since adenocarcinoma of the pancreas has dismal prognosis and radical resection is the only chance for cure. A PubMed search of relevant articles published up to day was performed to identify current information about pylorous preserving pancreatoduodenectomy especially its outcome regarding radicality and delayed gastric emptying. Pancreatoduodenectomy with pyloric preservation deals with better functional and nutritional outcome. It exhibits similar oncological efficacy with standard Whipple operation for the treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary area; it is considered as the procedure of choice in most of the cases. Delayed gastric emptying is not exclusively associated with pyloric preservation. The antecolic placement of the duodenojejunal anastomosis together with respect to the neurovascular integrity during dissection could contribute to prevention of this complication. The preservation of the stomach by resection only the pyloric ring has been proposed as a new approach. The preservation of the pylorus has already been consecrated for both benign and malignant disease with satisfactory short and long term results. doi:10.4021/jcs35w
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".