Worldwide survey among polyposis registries of surgical management of severe duodenal adenomatosis in familial adenomatous polyposis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lifetime risk of developing duodenal cancer in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is about 5 per cent. When and to what extent surgical intervention should be undertaken to prevent death from invasive carcinoma is controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of various surgical treatments for cancer and severe duodenal adenomatosis. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to the members of the Leeds Castle Polyposis Group to obtain data on patients with FAP, treated for duodenal cancer or severe duodenal adenomatosis after 1990. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were included. The indication for surgery was invasive cancer in 13 patients, of whom six died from metastatic disease. Fifty-six patients were initially treated for severe duodenal adenomatosis, five (9 per cent) of whom died from metastatic disease (P = 0.002). In surviving patients, adenomas recurred after ampullectomy (six of eight, at mean follow-up of 11 months), after duodenotomy with polypectomy (17 of 21, at mean 29 months) and after pancreatoduodenectomy (six of 25, at mean 47 months). None of six patients who underwent a pancreas-sparing duodenectomy had recurrence of adenoma (mean follow-up 11 months). CONCLUSION: Surgery for duodenal adenomatosis should take place before endoscopic biopsy reveals invasive cancer. Even after extensive surgical procedures, small bowel adenomas may occur, emphasizing the need for chemoprevention.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it