Technical aspects of cytoreductive surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the Fifth International Workshop on Peritoneal Surface Malignancy, in Milan, the consensus on technical aspects of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for peritoneal surface malignancy was obtained through the Delphi process. Five conflicting points were discussed: radicality of the peritonectomy procedure, cytoreduction of neoplastic nodules <2.5 mm, the timing of bowel anastomoses in relation to hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and indications of protective ostomies. According to the panel of experts a partial parietal peritonectomy restricted to the macroscopically involved regions could be indicated in all listed clinical conditions with the exception of peritoneal mesothelioma. No expert was of the opinion that a radical parietal peritonectomy is advisable irrespective of the disease being treated. All the experts agreed that electrovaporization of small (<2.5 mm) non-infiltrating metastatic nodules in the mesentery would be appropriate, even if theoretically the HIPEC affords microscopic cytoreduction. The panel also agreed that in the closed technique for HIPEC administration the intestinal anastomoses should be fashioned after completion of the perfusion. Finally when considering the place for protective ostomies the experts voted for a flexible approach allowing the surgeon to exercise discretion for individual patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".