Metal Stents for Tumors of the Distal Esophagus and Gastric Cardia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction More than 50 % of patients with cancer of the esophagus and gastric cardia have incurable disease at presentation and require palliative treatment for dysphagia. Placement of a self-expanding metal stent has become the treatment of choice for the majority of these patients. As the incidence of adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus is rising rapidly [ 1 ], it is likely that deployment of metal stents across the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) will increase. However, stenting of tumors of the distal esophagus and gastric cardia constitutes a particular problem. In comparison with stents placed for more proximally located esophageal tumors, these procedures provide inferior palliation and may have a higher complication rate [ 2 ]. The aim of this review on metal stenting of obstructive tumors in the distal esophagus and gastric cardia is to describe the problems encountered, the types of stents currently in use, the outcome of stenting and the occurrence and possible causes of complications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".