Systematic review of active surveillance <i>versus</i> surgical management of asymptomatic small non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of asymptomatic, sporadic, small non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NF-PNENs) has increased in recent decades. Conservative treatment has been advocated for these tumours. The aim of this study was systematically to evaluate the literature on active surveillance and to compare this with surgical management for asymptomatic sporadic small NF-PNENs. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically for studies that compared the active surveillance of asymptomatic, sporadic, small NF-PNENs with surgical management. PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed. RESULTS: After screening 3915 records, five retrospective studies with a total of 540 patients were included. Of these, 327 patients (60·6 per cent) underwent active surveillance and 213 (39·4 per cent) had surgery. There was wide variation in the tumour diameter threshold considered as inclusion criterion (2 cm to any size). The median length of follow-up ranged from 28 to 45 months. Measurable tumour growth was observed in 0-51·0 per cent of patients. Overall, 46 patients (14·1 per cent) underwent pancreatic resection after initial conservative treatment. In most patients the reason was an increase in tumour size (19 of 46). There were no disease-related deaths in the active surveillance group in any of the studies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review suggests that active surveillance of patients affected by sporadic, small, asymptomatic NF-PNENs may be a good alternative to surgical treatment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it