Early Routine Use of Upper GI Contrast Series Post Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: A Single Institution Consecutive Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is conflicting evidence with regard to the routine use of upper gastrointestinal contrast series in detecting early complications post paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR). METHODS: All cases booked for a PEHR between January 2007 and September 2015 were identified using hospital records. Standard demographic, operation, and imaging data were extracted. RESULTS: We retrospectively identified 391 PEHR cases between January 2007 and September 2015. The mean age at the index operation was 66.7 years with a female predominance. The majority of index operations were elective and completed for a large paraesophageal hernia. Contrast studies were reported as normal in 70.6%, a leak in 0.3%, an obstruction in 27.9%, and early recurrence in 1.0%. Reoperation was required in 1.8% of cases. CONCLUSION: Routine upper gastrointestinal contrast studies post-PEHR changed management in 0.8% of cases and were unhelpful in determining the need for early reoperation in 57.1% of cases requiring reoperation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".