Combined Intestinal and Biliary Stenting in Gastric Outlet and Biliary Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Combined intestinal and biliary stenting is one of the effective palliative methods for patients with malignant gastric outlet and biliary obstruction. This study was to evaluate the effect of combined intestinal and biliary stenting in the palliation of gastric outlet and biliary obstruction. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with malignant gastric outlet and biliary obstruction underwent combined intestinal and biliary stenting. Intestinal stents were implanted by means of endoscopy and X-ray guidance. The subsequent biliary stents were implanted by percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage. The biliary stent pass through the side hole of intestinal stent mesh and its distal segment was located in the lumen of intestinal stent. RESULTS: Thirty-four intestinal stents and 32 biliary stents for 32 patients were implanted successfully. No lethal complications occurred. The average survival was 164 days. CONCLUSIONS: The combined intestinal and biliary stenting is an effective and safe method for palliation of gastric outlet and biliary obstructions. The short-term results are satisfactory.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".