Clinicopathological features, surgical treatments, and survival outcomes of patients with small bowel adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, because of their rarity, the clinicopathological features and surgical outcomes of small bowel adenocarcinomas (SBAs) have been insufficiently explored. We evaluated the clinicopathological features and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent surgery for SBA.This retrospective study (from 1999 to 2016) examined patients with SBA treated surgically at the China National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital. Clinicopathological features, preoperative evaluation, surgical treatment, and outcome parameters were reviewed and analyzed.Among the 241 patients studied, pancreaticoduodenectomies were performed in 51.0%, partial resection in 24.5%, palliative bypass surgery in 23.7%, and abdominal exploration in 0.8% of the patients. Majority of the patients were diagnosed at an advanced disease stage, and the duodenum was the most common tumor site. Postoperative complications occurred in 44.4% of the patients. Median overall and progression-free survival rates were 22.0 and 13.0 months, respectively. The 5-year overall and progression-free survival rates for patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma were 30.2% and 21.7%, respectively. Duodenal adenocarcinomas, lymph node metastases, distant metastases, poor differentiation, and lymphovascular invasion were associated with poor overall survival outcomes. The 3 factors associated with progression-free survival were the degree of differentiation, lymph node metastases, and distant metastases.Surgery remains the mainstay of treatment for SBA. A poor prognosis could be owing to the site, metastasis, differentiation, and lymphovascular invasion; however, the prognosis may improve through early diagnosis and operation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".