Surgery for Gallbladder Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gallbladder cancer is an aggressive neoplasm, and resection is the only curative modality. Single institutional studies report an aggressive surgical approach improves survival. This analysis was performed to examine the components of surgical resection and resultant survival. STUDY DESIGN: From 1988 to 2003, patients aged 18 to 85 years, resected of T1-3 M0 gallbladder cancer, were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry. Resections were classified as en bloc (cholecystectomy + at least one adjacent organ) or simple (cholecystectomy only); lymphadenectomy was defined as three or more lymph nodes assessed. RESULTS: Of the 2,835 resected patients with T1-T3 M0 cancer, only 8.6% underwent an en bloc resection, and 5.3% had a lymphadenectomy. In multivariable analysis, age, year of resection, region, and advanced T-stage were associated with more aggressive resection. In univariate analysis, improved survival was associated with en bloc resection for T1/2 cancers, and lymphadenectomy for T2/3 cancers. In multivariable analysis, the following were associated with improved survival: for T1 cancers, en bloc resection, younger age, lower grade, and recent year of resection; for T2 cancers, Caucasian race (versus African-American), lower grade, and node negative disease, with trends for en bloc resection and lymphadenectomy; and for T3 cancers, female gender, Caucasian race (versus American Indian), lower grade, node negative disease, and recent year of resection, with a strong trend for lymphadenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Very few patients underwent aggressive surgery. En bloc resection and lymphadenectomy may have stage-specific effects on survival. Additional studies should explore the underuse of aggressive operations, verify survival advantages, and define stage-specific resection strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".