Reconstruction par réservoir colique en « J » après anastomose coloanale: le match Toulouse/Saint-Antoine !
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rectal resection with coloanal anastomosis was performed in 65 patients with carcinoma of the lower rectum. In 20 a pelvic colonic reservoir was constructed while in 45 a direct anastomosis was carried out. There were no postoperative deaths and morbidity was comparable in the two groups. Functional results were determined by clinical examination and manometry. The frequency of Bowel movements was inversely related to the maximum tolerated volume ( P < 0.001). During the first year 60 per cent of the patients with a reservoir and 33 per cent of the patients without had one or two stools per day ( P < 0.05). After one year, 86 per cent of the patients with a reservoir and 33 per cent of the patients without had one or two bowel movements per day ( P < 0.01). The maximum tolerated volume was increased by the reservoir ( P < 0.05). The loss of reservoir capacity of the rectum increases frequency of bowel movements in coloanal anastomosis. The creation of a colonic reservoir improves function by increasing the maximum tolerated volume without any increase in mortality or morbidity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".