Preoperative pancreatic stent placement before the enucleation of insulinoma located in the head and neck of the pancreas in proximity to the main pancreatic duct: study protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical trial in Chinese tertiary medical centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The surgical intervention approach to insulinomas in proximity to the main pancreatic duct remains controversial. Standard pancreatic resection is recommended by several guidelines; however, enucleation (EN) still attracts surgeons with less risk of late exocrine/endocrine insufficiency, despite a higher postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate. Recently, the efficacy and safety of preoperative pancreatic stent placement before the EN have been demonstrated. Thus, a multicentre open-label study is being conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of stent placement in improving the outcome of EN of insulinomas in proximity to the main pancreatic duct. Methods and analysis This is a prospective, randomised, open-label, superiority clinical trial conducted at multiple tertiary centres in China. The major eligibility criterion is the presence of insulinoma located in the head and neck of the pancreas in proximity (≤2 mm) to the main pancreatic duct. Blocked randomisation will be performed to allocate patients into the stent EN group and the direct EN group. Patients in the stent EN group will go through stent placement by the endoscopist within 24 hours before the EN surgery, whereas other patients will receive EN surgery directly. The primary outcome is the assessment of the superiority of stent placement in reducing POPF rate measured by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery standard. Both interventions will be performed in an inpatient setting and regular follow-up will be performed. The primary outcome (POPF rate) will be tested for superiority with the Χ 2 test. The difference in secondary outcomes between the two groups will be analysed using appropriate tests. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Peking Union Medical College Hospital Institutional Review Board (K23C0195), Ruijin Hospital Ethics Committee (2023-314), Peking University First Hospital Ethics Committee (2024033-001), Institutional Review Board of Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University (2023223-002), Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University (XJTU1AF2023LSK-473), Institutional Review Board of Tongji Medical College Tongji Hospital (TJ-IRB202402059), Ethics Committee of Tongji Medical College Union Hospital (2023-0929) and Shanghai Cancer Center Institutional Review Board (2309282-16). The results of the study will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number NCT05523778 .
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 | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
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".