Meta-analysis of pancreaticojejunostomy<i>versus</i>pancreaticogastrostomy reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the primary treatment for periampullary cancer. Associated morbidity is high and often related to pancreatic anastomotic failure. This paper compares rates of pancreatic fistula, morbidity and mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients having reconstruction by pancreaticogastrostomy with those in patients having reconstruction by pancreaticojejunostomy. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed of all large cohort and randomized controlled trials carried out since 1990. RESULTS: Eleven articles were identified for inclusion: one prospective randomized trial, two non-randomized prospective trials and eight observational cohort studies. The meta-analysis revealed a higher rate of pancreatic fistula associated with pancreaticojejunostomy reconstruction (relative risk (RR) 2.62 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1.91 to 3.60)). A higher overall morbidity rate was also demonstrated in this group (RR 1.43 (95 per cent c.i. 1.26 to 1.61)), as was a higher mortality rate (RR 2.51 (95 per cent c.i. 1.61 to 3.91)). CONCLUSION: Current literature suggests that the safer means of pancreatic reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy is pancreaticogastrostomy, but much of the evidence comes from observational cohort study data.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".