MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253260816 · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.02.021

The early diagnostic value of C-reactive protein for anastomotic leakage post radical gastrectomy for esophagogastric junction carcinoma: A retrospective study of 97 patients

2016· article· en· W2253260816 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Litong Ji, Tie Wang, Lining Tian, Meizhuo Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineAnastomosisCarcinomaGastrectomySurgeryComplicationEsophagogastric junctionGastroenterologyLeakInternal medicineCancerAdenocarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The incidence of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) carcinoma has increased worldwide. The only curable strategy for EGJ carcinoma is surgery, whereas anastomotic leakage is the major complication after operations. We aimed to test whether the serum levels of C-reactive protein have the diagnostic value for anastomotic leakage after surgery for EGJ carcinoma. METHODS: In this study, we analyzed the values of CRP before and 5 continuous days after surgery in 97 EGJ carcinoma patients who received surgery as the initial treatment. The levels of CRP in the groups of EGJ patients with or without anastomotic leakage were compared. RESULTS: The CRP levels of patients with anastomotic leakage elevated faster and remained higher compared patients without anastomotic leakage. The CRP value at Day 2 after radical surgery for EGJ carcinoma patients has the early diagnostic value for anastomotic leakage. The cut-off value of CRP for anastomotic leakage at Day 2 is 177 mg/l with the sensitivity of 0.9 and specificity of 0.95 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Surgical EGJ carcinoma patients with elevated CRP at Day 2 after surgery should be excluded the possibility of anastomotic leakage.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of SurgerySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207