The Effect of Wait Times on Oncological Outcomes From Periampullary Adenocarcinomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overall few patients presenting with periampullary adenocarcinomas have resectable lesions. We postulated that rapid diagnosis and treatment would enhance the likelihood of successful resection, improving survival. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing surgery for resection of a pancreatic or periampullary lesion was conducted. Resection rate, disease stage and survival were evaluated as a function of wait times. RESULTS: Pancreatic resections were booked in 355 patients. Of 193 patients with periampullary adenocarcinomas, 119 patients (61.7%) had resectable disease. There was no difference in median time from initial physician consultation to surgery in patients with resectable and unresectable disease (61 days vs. 64 days, respectively). The likelihood of successful resection was virtually identical in patients with wait times ≤ 30 and > 30 days (from surgical consultation to procedure). There was a trend toward a higher T-stage in patients who waited >30 days for surgery (P = 0.055). However, there was no difference in survival as a function of wait time. CONCLUSIONS: This series does not demonstrate an advantage for rapid diagnosis and surgery, in terms of resection rate and survival. However, further study is required in a larger cohort of patients, to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".