MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330726944 · doi:10.1055/s-0030-1256489

Analysis of variables associated with surgery versus observation in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions referred for endoscopic ultrasound

2011· article· en· W2330726944 on OpenAlexaff
Arun Sahai, Tju Siang Chua, S. Paquin, G Gariépy

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic ultrasoundCystRadiologyCarcinoembryonic antigenSerous CystadenomaFine-needle aspirationPancreatic diseaseUltrasoundPancreasBiopsyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

See also: Commentaire de travail de A. V. Sahai et al., pp. 591 Endoscopy 2011; 43(07): 647-647 DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291784 Introduction Pancreatic cystic lesions are usually pseudocysts or cystic neoplasms. Cystic neoplasms of the pancreas constitute about 10 % of all pancreatic cystic lesions and may be classified as malignant, premalignant, or benign [ 1 ]. Cystic lesions with malignant potential include mucinous cystic neoplasms, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, papillary cystic neoplasms, and cystic islet cell tumors. Serous cyst adenomas are usually benign [ 2 ]. In surgical candidates, EUS with EUS-guided cyst puncture is often requested for cyst fluid analysis (CFA). The hope is that morphological features seen at EUS combined with the results of CFA (for cytology, pancreatic enzymes, and cyst fluid tumor markers) will help decide which patients require surgery, as opposed to conservative management (i. e. “operate versus observe”). There are numerous studies suggesting that EUS and CFA may (or may not) reliably distinguish benign from malignant or premalignant cysts [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ]. However, no studies have assessed whether and to what extent EUS findings alone or in conjunction with EUS CFA findings actually affect the decision to operate (or to observe). We hypothesized that, despite the fact that EUS with CFA may appear to be a clinically useful tool in this clinical context, it is infrequently a strong determinant of whether operation or observation is chosen as the clinical management strategy. Other variables such as patient age, presence of symptoms, and cyst size, etc., may be stronger determinants of surgery versus observation. If this is the case, one may wonder if the inherent risks (e. g. hemorrhage, cyst infection) and costs of EUS with CFA are truly justified for this indication. This study was not designed to determine the accuracy of EUS and CFA for diagnosing pancreatic cysts; rather, it was designed to study whether EUS and CFA results actually affect the decision to operate on such lesions. The specific aim of this study was to determine the variables associated with surgery (versus observation) in patients with pancreatic cysts in whom EUS-FNA for CFA was requested.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207