Dilatation of Narrowed Pancreatic Duct Using a Soehendra Stent Retriever in Chronic Pancreatitis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims: Endoscopic pancreatic ductal drainage may help alleviate the pain from chronic pancreatitis, but stricture dilatation may be technically difficult. Dilatation of high grade strictures of the pancreatic ducts with using dilating or balloon catheters may result in failure. We evaluated the efficacy of using the Soehendra stent retriever as a dilator. Methods: Fourteen patients with pancreatic stricture had dilation performed with a Soehendra stent retriever. Each patient had sphincterotomy, guidewire placement and stent retriever dilatation. Results: All procedures were successful and none of the patients had complications. Symptom relief was observed after dilation in all patients. There was no complication associated with the use of the stent retriever.None of the patients have relapsed for 6 months. Conclusions: The Soehendra stent retriever is safe and effective as a dilating device for the pancreatic strictures that are resistant to conventional dilation.
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) | 0.000 | 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".