MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221114838 · doi:10.3390/jcm11061712

Interventional Endoscopy for Palliation of Luminal Gastrointestinal Obstructions in Management of Cancer: Practical Guide for Oncologists

2022· review· en· W4221114838 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Kim, Mandip Rai, Christopher Teshima

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic stentingEndoscopyColorectal cancerEsophageal cancerFirst lineStentRadiologyGeneral surgeryCancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-expanding metal stents placed during endoscopy are increasingly the first-line treatment for luminal obstruction caused by esophageal, gastroduodenal, and colorectal malignancies in patients who are not candidates for definitive surgical resection. In this review, we provide a practical guide for clinicians to optimise patient and procedure selection for endoscopic stenting in malignant gastrointestinal obstructions. The role of endoscopic stenting in each of the major anatomical systems (esophageal, gastroduodenal, and colorectal) is presented with regard to pre-procedural patient evaluation, procedural techniques, clinical outcomes, and potential complications, as well as post-procedure aftercare.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.375
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicEsophageal and GI PathologyFrench-language works237,207