Curative resection of pancreatic head carcinoma in recent 30 years: report of 377 cases.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate retrospectively the relationship between the types of operation, characteristics of tumor, and survival rate after radical pancreatoduodenectomy for patients with carcinoma of the pancreatic head performed in recent 30 years. METHODS: Of 377 patients with carcinoma of the pancreas treated during 1970-1999, 75 were subjected to Whipple procedure or pancreatectomy with dissection of regional lymph nodes (10 patients receiving intervention therapy). The latter is beneficial to patients with carcinoma of the pancreatic head. The operation may be extended by resection of a segment of superior mensenteric-portal vein confluence if involved. RESULTS: The resection rate was increased from 9% in the 1970s to 28.2% in the 1990s. The 1-, 3-, 5-year-survival rates were 50%, 25%, 0 in the 1970s; 57.1%, 28.5%, 9% in the 1980s; and 61.1%, 27%, 11.1% in the 1990s, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite its retrospective in nature, the present study suggests that in patients with pancreatic cancer without visceral or distant metastasis, resection should always be at tempted when there is no high operative risk factor and the operation is technically feasible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".