Application of Soehendra stent retriever to patients with hilarcholangiocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of Soehendra stent retriever used as a dilator for the patients with hilarcholangiocarcinoma. Methods During January 2010 and October 2012, patients with hilarcholangiocareinoma who underwent ERCP were recruited to the study. Dilation was attempted by using a dilating catheter. If the stricture could not be dilated, the Soehendra stent retriever was inserted over the wire to dilate the stricture. Results A total of 334 patients were diagnosed as having hilarcholangiocarcinoma with ERCP. Stricture could not be traversed with dilating catheter in 18 cases, the Soehendra stent retriever was used to dilate the stricture prior to stenting or ENBD. There was no complication relative to the procedure. Conclusion Soehendra stent retriever is safe and effective for dilation of bile duct strictures. Key words: Cholangiopanereatography, endoscopic retrograde ; Bile duct neoplasms ; Dilatation; Soehendra stent retriever
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".