Questionable benefit of being in hospital after procedure for patients without immediate adverse events in EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is no consensus about if patients with EUS-guided drainage (EUS-GD) of pancreatic pseudocyst (PPC) could be discharged the same day or if the patient must stay at least one night in hospital.The aim was to report adverse events rate in the first 24 h after the procedure of patients with PPC treated by EUS-GD.Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of data obtained prospectively was conducted.Patients with PPC were included in the study.EUS-GD was using two double pigtail plastic stents (7F and 4 cm).Results: A total of 31 procedures in 29 patients with PPC were analyzed.There were 16 (55.2%)men with a mean ± SD age of 42.5 ± 14.5 years.The endoscopic drainage was performed through transgastric in 23/29 (79.3%) patients and transduodenal in 6/29 (17.2%) patients.Technical success was 100%, clinical success was 27/29 (93.1%), and three (10.3%)patients had recurrence.In total, 5/31 (16.1%) procedures have adverse events.One patient had stent migration after 24-month follow-up, two patients had infection of PPC after the punctuation (at day 4 and 5 after procedure), and two patients who bled during endoscopic drainage (one of them was successfully treated endoscopically with clips and the second required surgery).Conclusion: There is not a clear reason because patients with PPC and EUS-GD need for staying one night in hospital if was not any adverse event during the procedure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".