MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324027617 · doi:10.3332/ecancer.2023.1519

Role of perigastric arcade removal in serous epithelial ovarian cancers

2023· article· en· W4324027617 on OpenAlexaff
Rohini Kulkarni, Manoranjan Mohapatra, Bhagyalaxmi Nayak, Sagarika Samantaray, Janmejaya Mohapatra, Jita Parija, Sushil Giri

Bibliographic record

Venueecancermedicalscience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOmentectomyMedicineSerous fluidSurgeryMicrometastasisInternal medicineChemotherapyCancerMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Omentectomy is an essential part of cytoreductive surgery (CRS). However, removal of perigastric arcade (PGA) of the omentum is a controversial aspect of omentectomy in view of the fear of injury, vascular compromise and gastroparesis. Hence, we conducted a study to evaluate the necessity and effect of removal of PGA during omentectomy. Methods: The nature of the study was a prospective observational study. The study period was for 1 year between 1.3.2019 and 29.2.2020. Patients with stage III to IV serous epithelial ovarian cancers - chemo naive/post neoadjuvant chemotherapy, without macroscopic involvement of the PGA were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups - those who had PGA removed (group 1) and those whose PGA was preserved (group 2). Pre, intra and postoperative factors between the two groups were compared using standard statistical methods. Results: < 0.001) in group 1, although all with small absolute difference. However, there was no significant difference in major post-operative complications or time taken to tolerate soft diet. Conclusion: Micrometastasis to PGA was noted in significant number of cases. Its removal is also a safe procedure with minimal morbidity and good postoperative outcomes especially in cases with significant peritoneal carcinomatosis. Hence, it should be considered, provided we are achieving a complete cytoreduction otherwise.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueecancermedicalscienceSame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207