The early diagnostic value of C-reactive protein for anastomotic leakage post radical gastrectomy for esophagogastric junction carcinoma: A retrospective study of 97 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".