Impact of perioperative chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with gastric cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Perioperative chemotherapy (PeriCh) is the current standard of care for stage II/III gastric cancer tumors in Europe. However, when it concerns patients who endure complications during PeriCh it is unclear if it increases the risk of postoperative complications and other poorer surgical outcomes. We aim to demonstrate if there is an association between having complications during PeriCh and postoperative complications and histopathological response. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, transversal, and observational study, including all patients with diagnosed gastric cancer who underwent PeriCh followed by surgical resection during the period of eight years. Results: We included 80 patients with a median age of 64.0years (min 24, max 78). Eighty-eight-point eight percent ended the chemotherapy regime proposed, with a median duration of 42 days, and were also submitted to gastric resection: 58.8% total gastrectomy and 41.2% distal gastrectomy. Twelve-point five percent of the patients had no complications during the PeriCh period and 16.3% had >2 complications. Twenty-five percent of patients had a histological response of <10% of tumor burden, but in 41.3% only regression of <50% could be obtained. No significant association was found between complications during PeriCh and adverse surgical outcomes ( P = .497). Patients with complications during PeriCh had slightly higher median time difference from end of PeriCh until surgery, but with no statistical significance ( P = .575). Conclusions: In our sample, the existence of association between complications during PeriCh and postoperative complications or histological response was not demonstrated.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".