Pancreatic Cancer: Who Benefits from Curative Resection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical resection is the only chance for cure of pancreatic cancer. Unfortunately, the majority of patients have grossly unresectable disease. Patients with stage I or II disease according to the criteria of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) should be considered for potentially curative surgery. The goal of surgery is to remove the entire tumour with no residual disease (oncological R0 resection), which requires extensive resection of the surrounding tissues. Even if lymph nodes are histologically free of disease, molecular biological techniques reveal infiltration with cancer cells in 50% of cases. Therefore, extensive local resection combined with radical resection of lymphatic tissue, including lymph nodes around the head of the pancreas, retroperitoneal tissue and neural plexus around the great vessels, affords a longer median survival time than standard resection alone. Even patients with UICC stage III disease can undergo aggressive surgical treatment, but their chances for long term survival are low. Some patients develop severe diarrhea after circumferential removal of nerve tissue around the superior mesenteric artery. Adjuvant radiochemotherapy also provides a modest prolongation of survival. Despite these advances, the prognosis for pancreatic cancer is still poor, and spread of tumour within the peritoneum and to the liver is common postoperatively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".