Endoscopic Treatment of Chronic Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Study of 1000 Patients with Long-Term Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic ductal decompression therapy has become an established method of treating patients with painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Smaller series, mostly with a medium-term follow-up period, have reported encouraging results. The present analysis presents long-term follow-up data from a large multicenter patient cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with painful chronic pancreatitis and with ductal obstruction due to either strictures and/or stones treated endoscopically at eight different centers underwent follow-up after 2 - 12 years (mean 4.9 years). The patients' clinical data, the rate of technical success, and complications were recorded from the charts. Follow-up data were prospectively obtained using structured questionnaires; the main parameter for evaluating treatment success was a significant reduction in pain (no pain or only weak pain). RESULTS: Follow-up data were obtained from 1018 of 1211 patients treated (84%) with mainly strictures (47%), stones (18%), or strictures plus stones (32%). At the long-term follow-up, 60% of the patients had their endotherapy completed, 16% were still receiving some form of endoscopic treatment, and 24% had undergone surgery. The long-term success of endotherapy was 86% in the entire group, but only 65% in an intention-to-treat analysis. There were no significant differences between the patient groups with regard to either strictures, stones, or both. Pancreatic function was not positively affected by endoscopic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ductal decompression therapy offers relief of pain in two-thirds of the patients when it is used as the only form of treatment. One-quarter of the patients have to undergo surgery.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".