MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2213998036 · doi:10.3748/wjg.v21.i47.13332

Robotic gastrectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction for female gastric cancer patients

2015· article· en· W2213998036 on OpenAlexaff
Shu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastroenterology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
FundersNanjing University
KeywordsGastrectomyMedicineSurgeryCancerBody mass indexLymph nodeAnastomosisDissection (medical)LaparoscopyAdenocarcinomaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To describe the application of complete robotic gastrectomy with transvaginal specimen extraction (TVSE) for gastric cancer patients. METHODS: Between July and November 2014, eight female patients who were diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma underwent a TVSE following a full robot-sewn gastrectomy. According to the tumor location, the patients were allocated to two different groups; two patients received robotic total gastrectomy with TVSE and the other six received robotic distal gastrectomy with TVSE. RESULTS: Surgical procedures were successfully performed in all eight cases without conversion. The mean age was 55.3 (range, 42-69) years, and the mean body mass index was 23.2 (range, 21.6-26.0) kg/m(2). The mean total operative time and blood loss were 224 (range, 200-298) min and 62.5 (range, 50-150) mL, respectively. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.6 (range, 3-5) d. The mean number of lymph nodes resected was 23.6 (range, 17-27). None was readmitted within 30 d of postoperation. During the follow-up, no stricture developed nor was any anastomotic leakage detected. CONCLUSION: It is possible to perform a TVSE following a full robot-sewn gastrectomy with standard D2 lymph node resection for female gastric cancer patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207