Distal pancreatectomy: experience in a National Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: To compare the short-term outcomes of patients undergoing open DP (ODP) and laparoscopic DP (LDP); and to analyze the association between the section site of the pancreas and pancreatic fistula.Materials and methods: Clinical, perioperative, and histopathologic data of patients who underwent ODP and LDP between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed.Results: 70 patients were registered.39 (56%) underwent ODP and 31 (44%) underwent LDP.The tumor size in ODP group was 70mm and in LDP group was 45mm (p = 0.032) Blood loss was lower in LDP group (229mL versus 498mL) (p = 0.001).Operative time, spleen preservation, B/C pancreatic fistula, major morbidity, reoperation, and length of hospital stay, were similar in both groups.There was no postoperative mortality.No differences were found in B/C pancreatic fistula rate regarding to pancreatic transection site.Conclusions: LDP is a safe procedure, with perioperative outcomes similar to ODP and with less blood loss.The pancreatic transection site did not influence post-operative pancreatic fistula rate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".