MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890562588 · doi:10.1093/dote/doy089.ps01.173

PS01.173: MANAGEMENT OF INTRATHORACIC AND CERVICAL ANASTOMOTIC LEAKAGE AFTER ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2018· review· en· W2890562588 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Moniek Verstegen, Stefan A.W. Bouwense, Frans van Workum, Richard P. G. ten Broek, Peter D. Siersema, Maroeska M. Rovers, Camiel Rosman

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Esophagus · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsophagectomyEsophageal cancerAnastomosisSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyGeneral surgeryInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Anastomotic leakage affects up to 30% of patients after esophagectomy each year and leads to considerable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine which treatment for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy has the best clinical outcome, based on currently available literature. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase and Web of Science until April 2017. All studies reporting on the treatment of anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction for esophageal or cardia cancer were included. The primary outcome parameter was postoperative mortality. Methodological quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results Nineteen retrospective cohort studies including 273 patients were identified. Methodological quality of all studies was poor to moderate. Regarding intrathoracic anastomotic leakages, mortality rates in the conservative, endoscopic stent, endoscopic drainage, endoscopic vacuum assisted closure system and surgery treatment group were 14%, 8%, 8%, 0%, and 50%, respectively. Regarding cervical anastomotic leakages, mortality rates in the conservative, endoscopic stent and endoscopic dilatation group were 8%, 29%, and 0%, respectively. Conclusion Due to small cohorts, heterogeneity between studies, and lack of data regarding leakage characteristics, no evidence supporting one treatment for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy was found. A severity score based on leakage characteristics instead of treatment given is essential for determining the optimal treatment of anastomotic leakage. A prospective registration study could provide answers to issues as which leakage characteristics determine its severity and which treatment options have the best outcomes for a given anastomotic leakage severity. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the EsophagusSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207