Management of Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction with Expandable Metallic Stent Placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the efficacy and procedural skills of metallic stent placement for malignant gastric outlet obstruction. METHODS: Nine patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction were performed metallic stent placement. Two stent placement methods were employed, the first, stents were placed under guidance of endoscopy in 7 patients (stent introducer: 140 mm in length and 4-6 mm in diameter); the second, duodenal stents were placed through endoscopic biopsy channel (3.2 or 4.2 mm in diameter) in 2 patients. RESULTS: The stent placement succeeded at the first attempt in all 9 patients. Among the 9 patients, 3 placed with 2 x 10 cm stents, and 6 with 2 x 8 cm stents. Pylorus stents, duodenal stents, and esophageal stents were placed in 2 patients, 6 patients and 1 patient, respectively. Stents expanded about 90% confirmed by fluoroscopy 24 - 48 h after the procedure. the patients started liquid food 24 h after stent placement. The common post-procedural complications included nausea, vomiting, upper digestive tract hemorrhage and upper abdominal pain. Post-procedural obstructive jaundice occurred in 1 patient. During the 3 months follow-up, no stent migration, removal and occlusion occurred. Of the 9 patients, 3 survived 10-15 days and 2 survived 1-2 months, the rest 4 patients survived 3 months. The mean stent patency was 53.4 days. CONCLUSIONS: Expandable metallic stents placed in patients with malignant obstruction of gastric outlet effectively palliate the obstructive symptoms. Technical skills play important roles in stent placement in treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction, and the efficacy of metallic stent placement is associated with the location of metallic stents and therapeutic indications.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".