351. PARA-ANASTOMOTIC FLUID ANALYSIS AFTER ESOPHAGECTOMY: PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM A PILOT CLINICAL TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Anastomotic leak is a serious complication following esophagectomy, with risk factors including poor conduit blood flow and cervical location of the anastomosis. Leaks occur in 10–25% of patients and lead to increased morbidity, additional healthcare utilization, and a mortality rate of 7–35%. Fluid acidity (pH) and electrical conductivity (EC) have been shown to be predictors of leak after colonic anastomoses. We hypothesize that pH and EC, from drain output, can enable early prediction of anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy. Methods A prospective pilot study of patients undergoing esophagectomy at a single academic institution was performed. A portable, non-invasive biosensor system was attached inline between a standard anastomotic drainage catheter and evacuator bulb. The sensor continuously monitored drainage fluid characteristics including pH and electrical conductivity (EC), viewed in real-time on a bedside monitor. Preliminary data are summarized with Lowess plots for visual comparison and summary statistics (average, standard deviation). Results Thirteen patients have been evaluated: 9 neck drains (from 7 transhiatal and 2 McKeown esophagectomies) and 7 chest drains (from 4 Ivor Lewis esophagectomies with 1–2 drains). One patient was diagnosed with a leak, and two patients were diagnosed with clinical neck infections without leak. Average pH from cervical (n = 6) or chest (n = 7) drains without leak/infection was 8.005+/−0.661 and 8.135+/−0.224, respectively (Fig. 1a). Average EC from cervical or chest drains was 11.441+/−1.178mS/cm and 12.691+/−0.538mS/cm, respectively (Fig. 1b). In one patient with leak, the average cervical drain pH was 7.639 (Fig. 1c) and average EC was 12.443 (Fig. 1d). Conclusion Preliminary data suggest that monitoring para-anastomotic electrical conductivity and pH merits continued investigation to predict post-esophagectomy anastomotic leaks, with pilot data showing similar trends (lower pH, higher EC) observed for intraperitoneal bowel anastomotic leaks.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".