Thoracoscopic S1 segmentectomy, right upper lobe: alternative posterior approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimally invasive pulmonary segmentectomy allows adequate oncological treatment in selected cases while preserving lung parenchyma and minimizing perioperative morbidity and length of hospital stay. Although several variations of minimally invasive pulmonary segmentectomy have been described, a fully thoracoscopic multiport approach that allows direct access to the segmental structures, is straightforward and is versatile enough to allow adaptation in case of unexpected intraoperative findings (such as conversion to lobectomy in the case of positive margins) is preferable. The S1 (apical) segment of the right upper lobe has some unique features that may make a conventional anterior approach challenging. The presence of multiple vascular structures bearing complex anatomical relationships and the requirement for preserving these structures may make identification of and access to the apical artery, and subsequent access to the segmental bronchus, challenging. In contradistinction, a posterior approach may obviate some of these challenges by allowing direct access to the segmental bronchus. Once the bronchus is divided, the apical artery is in direct alignment with the operating instruments, without encroachment from other troublesome vascular structures. This situation, however, remains contingent on individual anatomy, which may vary.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".