Efficacy of an antiadhesive agent for the prevention of intra-abdominal adhesions after radical gastrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guardix-SG is a poloxamer-based antiadhesive agent. The aim of this study was to investigate its efficacy in preventing abdominal adhesions in gastric cancer patients undergoing gastrectomy. Few clinical studies have reported that antiadhesive agent reduces the incidence of adhesion after gastrectomy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter trial from June 2013 and August 2015 in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma undergoing radical gastrectomy. Patients were randomly assigned to the Guardix treatment or control group. Postoperative adhesions were diagnosed based on postoperative symptoms, plain x-ray films, and computed tomography. The primary endpoint of the study was the incidence of small bowel obstruction in the first postoperative year. The secondary end-point was the safety of Guardix-SG. RESULTS: The study included 109 patients in the Guardix group and 105 patients in the control group. The groups were similarly matched with pathological stage, operation type, anastomosis method, midline incision length, and the extent of lymph node dissection. Eight in the Guardix group and 21 in the control group experienced intestinal obstruction during the 1-year follow-up period. The cumulative incidence of small bowel obstruction was significantly lower in the Guardix group compared to that seen in the control group (4.7% vs 8.6% at 6 months and 7.3% vs 20% at 1 year; P = .007, log-rank test). There were no differences in postoperative complications and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Guardix-SG significantly decreased the incidence of intestinal obstruction without affecting the incidence of postoperative complications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".