Short-term clinical effects of robot-assisted esophagectomy with thoracic duct resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Whether extended robot-assisted esophagectomy with thoracic duct resection (RAE-TDR) has a favorable effect on esophageal cancer patients is not yet known. This study sought to analyze the safety and efficiency of RAE-TDR. Methods: From January 2019 to July 2020, 73 thoracic duct (TD)-resected and 127 TD-preserved consecutive patients who received standard RAE McKeown surgery were enrolled in this study. The perioperative-related indicators of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) at 1-year were compared between the 2 groups. Results: 7.9%; P=0.034). Conclusions: RAE-TDR may help to improve total and metastatic LN harvest, especially in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) without increasing the intra- and post-operative adverse events. However, RAE-TDR did not lead to a decrease in the local recurrence rate within the short-term follow-up period. Whether the increase in distant metastasis rate in the TD-resected group was associated with relevant immune system damage is unclear. Thus, nonselective RAE-TDR is not routinely recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".