Profile of patients with hepatic hydatid disease not treated surgically
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) is still an important health problem in certain areas of Spain where it is endemic. The treatment of HHD is usually surgical but certain patients are found to be ineligible after assessment for surgery (asymptomatic disease, comorbidity, patient refusal, or other). MATERIAL AND METHODS: description of patients assessed in the Department of Surgery for hepatic hydatid disease. RESULTS: in a group of 70 patients with HHD, 27 patients were not treated surgically (mean age: 72.7 years [range: 47-97], 14 women [51.8%]). The number of cysts presented by these patients was 33, with 1.22 cyst/patient (range: 1-4). The cyst size was 5.5 cm (range: 2.1-12.5 cm). The cysts, according to the WHO classification, were CE1: 3 patients, CE3B: 5 patients, CE4: 10 patients and CE5: 9 patients. The form of presentation was: symptomatic in 9 patients, although only 6 were attributable to HHD (22%) and asymptomatic in 18 patients. In these cases, imaging was performed for study of tumor extension in 6 patients and diverse medical reasons in 12. Only two therapeutic interventions were performed: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with insertion of a bile duct stent, and puncture-aspiration-injection-re-aspiration (PAIR), both in patients who did not wish to undergo surgery.Ten patients had surgical indications: CE1 (3 patients), CE3B (5 patients), CE4 (1 patient), and CE5 (1 patient). The reasons why the patients did not undergo surgical treatment were: refusal (9 patients) and advanced neoplasm (1 patient). Surgery was judged necessary in 5 patients. In the mean follow-up period of 17 months (range: 1-37), no surgery was performed. CONCLUSIONS: there were various causes for not performing surgical intervention of HHD after medical evaluation: asymptomatic patients, older patients, patients with multiple pathologies and oncologic patients. Usually, they were patients who voluntarily chose not 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".