MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381930879 · doi:10.1097/ms9.0000000000000809

Postesophagectomy chylothorax: a review of the risk factors, diagnosis, and management

2023· review· en· W4381930879 on OpenAlexaff
Mahdi Zarei, Majid Montazer, Sepehr Shakeri Bavil Oliyaei, Farid Jahanshahlou, Mohammad‐Salar Hosseini

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Medicine and Surgery · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChylothoraxMedicineIntensive care medicineThoracic ductPleural effusionSurgeryChyleRespiratory distressEsophagectomyComplicationLymphatic systemInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chylothorax is a crucial postoperative complication of esophagectomy. Characterized by the leakage of chyle and lymphatic fluid through the thoracic duct, chylothorax could result in pleural effusion, respiratory distress, shortness of breath, cardiac arrhythmia, electrolyte imbalance, and malnutrition. Postesophagectomy chylothorax is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and its diagnosis and management require prompt and accurate identification of risk factors and treatment strategies. A variety of strategies are available to treat postesophagectomy chylothorax, ranging from conservative management to pharmacological, lymphangiographic, and surgical treatments. This study reviews the physio-anatomical basis, disease presentation, diagnostic methods, risk factors, and management options for postesophageal chylothorax, filling the literature gap, and highlighting the importance of early recognition and timely intervention in improving patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Medicine and SurgerySame topicLymphatic Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207