MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416592877 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32120657

Pancreatico-Jejunostomy Fistula After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Where Do We Stand? Results from an International Survey

2025· article· en· W4416592877 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Silvio Caringi, Michele Tedeschi, Antonella Delvecchio, Annachiara Casella, Valentina Ferraro, Cataldo De Palma, Rosalinda Filippo, Matteo Stasi, Tommaso Maria Manzia, Riccardo Memeo

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFistulaIncidence (geometry)StandardizationMEDLINEStent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Pancreatico-duodenectomy (PD) remains one of the most complex abdominal surgeries, and pancreatico-jejunostomy (PJ) fistula is its most critical postoperative complication. In efforts to reduce the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), several PJ techniques and adjuncts, including stents, have been recommended. This article presents data from an international survey regarding PJ methods, the use of pancreatic stents, and their correlation with POPF rates from surgical centers worldwide. METHODS: -value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 122 units of pancreatic surgery from 26 countries distributed across five continents responded to the survey. Most centers performed less than 50 PDs a year, preferred a duct-to-mucosa PJ, and employed a stent routinely. Mean POPF grade B and C incidences were lower in high-volume (15.24% ± 7.29 and 3.95% ± 2.39) and in PJ stent-using centers (16.25% ± 8.7 and 5.37% ± 7.49). CONCLUSIONS: Institutional case volume and stent usage are more crucial determinants of POPF incidence than the PJ technique itself. Centralization and standardization of PD procedures are related to reductions in major fistula rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research→French-language works237,207→