Preservation and Restoration of Sphincter Function in Patients with Rectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radical resection of rectal cancer is the standard treatment for curing this disease. Half of these tumours are located in the rectosigmoid region or the upper third of the rectum and are, therefore, easily resectable with preservation of the sphincter muscles, thus guaranteeing acceptable continence in most patients. However, tumours that originate in the lower parts of the rectum have been accompanied with the need for an abdominoperineal resection and the threat of a permanent colostomy. In the past 20 years, sphincter-saving surgery has become increasingly common in the treatment of tumours of the middle and low rectum due to the knowledge of tumour growth, the use of stapling devices, and the knowledge of the physiology of the pelvic floor and the sphincter muscles, respectively. Recent surgical techniques of resection of the 'ultralow' rectum (intersphincteric resection) and the reconstruction by coloanal anastomosis are reviewed. Functional problems following ultralow resections are emphasized, as well as the possibility of sphincter restoration after abdominoperineal resection by use of dynamic graciloplasty. Taking all surgical options into account, a permanent colostomy for rectal cancer can be avoided in most curatively and electively operated patients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".