Treatment Options for Patients With Persistent Disease After Initial Endotherapy for Esophageal Neoplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are numerous treatment options for esophageal dysplasia and neoplasia. Initial endoscopic therapy is the standard of care for high-risk lesions of the esophagus. However, residual and recurrent disease may be seen after initial endoscopic treatment, and selection of the optimal salvage treatment may be critical in achieving cure. Patients may be high risk for esophagectomy after assessment of risk factors such as age, frailty, and nutritional status. A wide array of salvage endoscopic eradication therapies may also be available, but consideration should be given to the initial endoscopic treatment modality, patient related risk factors, and expertise at the regional center. Chemoradiation may also play a key role in treating high risk patients and should be planned in conjunction with surgery or endoscopic therapy. Multidisciplinary team care improves survival in high-risk patients with high-risk lesions. Consideration should be given to a multidisciplinary approach after the diagnosis of dysplastic and malignant esophageal disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".