Changes in Preoperative Endoscopic and Percutaneous Bile Drainage in Patients with Periampullary Cancer Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Ontario: Effect on Clinical Practice of a Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In 2010, a multicentre randomized controlled trial reported increased postoperative complications in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PDE) patients undergoing preoperative biliary decompression (PBD). We evaluated the effect of that publication on rates of PBD at the population level. Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study identified patients undergoing PDE for malignancy, 2005–2013, linking them with administrative health care databases covering medical services for a population of 13.5 million. Patients undergoing PBD within 6 weeks before their surgery were identified using physician billing codes and were divided into those undergoing PDE before and after article publication, with a 6-month washout period. Chi-square tests were used to compare rates of PBD. Results: Of 1997 PDE patients identified, 963 underwent surgery before article publication, and 911, after (123 during the washout period). The rate of PBD was 47.5% before publication, and 41.6% after (p = 0.01). The lowest PBD rates occurred immediately after publication, in 2010 and 2011. Similar results were observed when the cohort was restricted to patients seen preoperatively by a gastroenterologist (n = 1412). Conclusions: Rates of PBD have declined a small, but significant, amount after randomized trial publication. Persistence of PBD might relate to suboptimal knowledge translation, the role of PBD in diagnosis of periampullary malignancy, and treatment of complications (cholangitis, severe hyperbilirubinemia) or anticipation of delay from diagnosis to surgery. The nadir in PBD rates after article publication and the subsequent rise suggest an element of transience in the effect of article publication on clinical practice. Further investigation into the reasons for persistent PBD is needed.
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 | 0.023 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".