Metallic stents in the treatment of duodenal obstruction: technical issues and results.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of duodenal stenting procedures and to review technical issues with these procedures in a series of cases over a 1-year period. METHODS: Expandable metallic stents (Wallstents) of varying sizes were introduced and deployed in 4 patients (1 man and 3 women 42 to 81 years of age). Each patient underwent a separate method of stent introduction with either fluoroscopic or endoscopic guidance, either perorally, transgastrically and transhepatically. RESULTS: All procedures were technically successful, allowing patients to continue eating normally. In 1 patient, stent foreshortening necessitated the introduction of a second stent. Another patient experienced transient stent obstruction by food; this resolved spontaneously and required no additional intervention. Based on the patients' continuing ability to tolerate food, it was believed that the stents remained patent until the time of death (from 3 days to 9 weeks with a mean of 5.25 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Duodenal stenting procedures provide a relatively new, technically feasible and efficacious method of managing duodenal obstructions, especially in patients who are poor candidates for surgery.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".