A randomized trial comparing winged versus conventional plastic stents for malignant bile duct strictures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Stent insertion at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an established therapy for managing malignant biliary obstruction. Conventional plastic stents with a tubular design are most commonly used despite limited patency. Plastic stents with a winged design may theoretically increase the duration of stent patency. The aim of this study was to compare stent patency of the winged versus conventional plastic stents in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized subject-blinded trial was conducted. Patients with malignant biliary obstruction were randomized (1:1) to either a 10 French winged stent or 7 or 10 French conventional plastic stent. Strictures greater than 1 cm distal to the hilum were included. Patients were followed clinically to determine the frequency of stent failure until surgery, death or study closure. RESULTS: = 0.963) for the winged and conventional group, respectively. Stent failure for the winged group occurred in 11 (48 %) compared to 14 (54 %) in the conventional group. Median survival was 123 (95 % CI 81 - 189) vs 342 days (95 % CI 123 - 704) (p = 0.084) in the winged and conventional group respectively. There were no procedure related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in stent patency was not seen with the winged stent when compared to the conventional plastic stent.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".