Utility of intraoperative pathology consultations of whipple resection specimens and their impact on final margin status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The resection margin status is a significant surgical prognostic factor for the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple procedure). As a result, surgeons frequently rely on intraoperative consults (IOCs) involving frozen sections to evaluate margin clearance during these resections. Nevertheless, the impact of this practice on final margin status and long-term outcomes remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to assess the impact of IOCs on the clearance rate of resection margins following Whipple procedure and distal pancreatectomy. A retrospective database review of all patients who underwent Whipple procedure or distal pancreatectomy at our institution between 2018 and 2020 was performed to evaluate the utility of IOCs by gastrointestinal surgeons and its correlation with final postoperative surgical margin status. A significant variation in the frequency of IOC requests for margins among surgeons was noted. However, the use of frozen section analysis for intraoperative margin assessment was not significantly associated with the clearance rate of final post-operative margins. More frequent use of IOC did not result in higher final margin clearance rate, an important prognostic factor following Whipple procedure.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".