Treatment of advanced esophageal carcinoma with membrane-covered self-expanding metallic stent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of membrane covered self expanding metallic stent for advanced esophageal carcinoma. Methods A total of 92 membrane covered self expanding stents were implanted in 83 patients with advanced esophageal carcinoma Of the 83 patients, 52 inoperable patients underwent implantation of stents under radiological guidance, and placement of stents was performed on the rest who received thoracotomy during surgical process. The degree of palliation was graded by dysphagia score (Neuhaus classification) Fllow up was carried out in all patients Results Every implantation of stent was successful The dysphagia was improved significantly After the implantation of stents, the diameter of the stricture dilated from (3 22±1 04) mm to (15 29±3 27) mm ( P 0 01) The short and long term incidence rates of complication were 25 3%(21/83) and 16 7%(8/48) respectively Conclusion Implantation of membrane covered self expanding stents appears to be an excellent palliative method for relieving esophageal stricture of advanced esophageal carcinoma
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".