Impact of Safe Distance on Long‐Term Outcome After Surgical Therapy of Alveolar Echinococcosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In humans, alveolar echinococcosis (AE) is a serious helminthic disease. Additionally to a long-term medical treatment, in all suitable cases a complete surgical resection with a 20-mm safe distance (minimal distance of larval tissue to resection margin) is recommended. We analyzed the influence of the safe distance and the effect of the postoperative anthelmintic prophylaxis on the long-term outcome of patients who underwent surgery with curative intent. OBJECTIVE: Ninety-two operated patients were evaluated regarding the safe distance, the duration of medical therapy with benzimidazole derivates, and the further course of AE. RESULTS: Median follow-up after surgical procedure was 8.3 years. Twelve patients had a safe distance of 20 mm or more, 16 patients between 10 and 19 mm, 21 patients between 1 and 10 mm, and 10 patients 1 mm. In a further 33 patients, the affected liver was resected without any safe distance. Recurrence of AE was seen in 15 patients between 4 months and 24 years after initial operation. Safe distances of patients with recurrent disease were: 13 × no safe distance, one patient with 1-mm and one patient with 13-mm safe distance. In all patients except one with recurrent AE, postoperative therapy with benzimidazole derivates was stopped. CONCLUSION: A safe distance of at least 1 mm in combination with medical anthelmintic treatment continuing for two years might offer a good chance of being disease-free long term, but the exact period of medical treatment needed is not defined. The therapy regime should be determined through an interdisciplinary approach in specialized centers.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".