MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377691183 · doi:10.1055/a-2098-2570

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy vs. surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stenting for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4377691183 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy International Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGastroenterostomyGastric outlet obstructionOdds ratioConfidence intervalEnteral administrationEndoscopic ultrasoundMeta-analysisGastric bypassEndoscopic stentingGastrostomySurgeryStentGastroenterologyInternal medicineParenteral nutritionCancerGastrectomyWeight loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and study aims Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is traditionally treated with surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ), which is effective but associated with high rates of morbidity, or endoscopic stenting (ES), which is less invasive but associated with significant risk of stent dysfunction and need for reintervention. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) provides a robust bypass without the invasiveness of surgery. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing EUS-GE to SGJ and ES for MGOO. Electronic databases were searched from inception through February 2022. A meta-analysis was performed with results reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random effects models. Primary outcomes included clinical success without recurrent GOO and adverse events (AEs). Results Sixteen studies involving 1541 patients were included. EUS-GE was associated with higher clinical success without recurrent GOO compared to ES or SGJ [OR 2.60, 95% CI1.58–4.28] and compared to ES alone [OR 5.08, 95% CI 3.42–7.55], but yielded no significant difference compared to SGJ alone [OR 1.94, 95% CI 0.97–3.88]. AE rates were significantly lower for EUS-GE compared to ES or SGJ grouped together [OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20–0.58], or SGJ alone [OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10–0.30] but were not significant different versus ES alone [OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29–1.14]. Conclusions EUS-GE is the most successful approach to treating MGOO, exhibiting a lower risk of recurrent obstruction compared to ES, and fewer AEs compared to SGJ.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.225 · 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