A Thickness Calibration Device Is Needed to Determine Staple Height and Avoid Leaks in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leaks after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) may be due to a mismatch between staple height and tissue thickness. The aim of this study was to determine the range of gastric thicknesses in three areas of stapling. METHODS: SG was performed using a 40-Fr suction calibration system 4 cm from the pylorus. Measurement of combined gastric walls was accomplished with an applied pressure of 8 g/mm(2) on the fundus, midbody, and antrum. RESULTS: We enrolled 26 SG patients (15 women, 11 men; mean age 36.8 years). Body mass index (BMI) averaged 45.3 kg/m(2) overall, 44.7 kg/m(2) for males and 45.7 kg/m(2) for females. Although male patients had a thicker stomach antrum than female patients (3.12 vs. 3.09 mm), the midbody (2.57 vs. 3.09 mm) and proximal areas (1.67 vs. 1.72 mm) were thicker in female patients. However, some maximum fundus thicknesses were up to 2.83 mm in females and 2.28 mm in males. Some antra were as thick as 4.07 mm in females and 5.39 mm in males. Also, men had a longer average staple line (22.95 vs. 19.90 cm). CONCLUSION: Because of the range of gastric thicknesses, a single staple height cannot be used to appose the full range of gastric wall thicknesses without potentially causing necrosis or poor apposition. To help avoid leaks, a thickness calibration device is needed to determine correct staple height.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it