Management of Cancer-Associated Intestinal Obstruction in the Final Year of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is variation in the clinical management of intestinal obstruction (IO) in patients with cancer. We describe the management of cancer-associated IO near the end of life in a population-based cohort with universal health coverage. Methods: Patients who died of gastric, colorectal, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers from 2002 to 2015 were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry. Those with ≥1 hospital admission for IO in the final year of life were identified from administrative data. Management of IO at index admission was categorized as surgery, gastrostomy, stent, feeding jejunostomy, and medical management. Trends in management over the study period were assessed by the Cochran-Armitage test. Results: The cohort included 57 378 patients (gastric [n = 7448, 13%], colorectal [n = 30 577 53%], ovarian [n = 6273, 11%], and pancreatic [n = 13 080, 23%] cancers). Of those, 7618 (13%) patients had ≥1 admission for IO in the final year of life. Of these patients, 2657 (35%) patients were managed with a surgical/procedural intervention at index admission (surgery [86%], gastrostomy [8%], stent [6%], and jejunostomy [0.4%]); the remaining patients (n = 4961, 65%) received medical management. Over the study period, there was a small but statistically significant increase in the use of stents (0% in 2002 to 5% in 2015, P < .0001) and gastrostomy tubes (2% in 2002 to 4% in 2015, P = .002) and a large decrease in the use of surgery (41% in 2002 to 28% in 2015, P = .04). Conclusions: Management of IO has changed over time with the increased use of stents and gastrostomy tubes and decreased use of surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".