内镜引流与经皮引流治疗感染性包裹性坏死：一项比较分析
感染性包裹性坏死（WON）患者接受内镜或经皮引流比较的临床数据，包含临床成功率、器官衰竭缓解率及固体成分影响。
基本信息
资源简介
内镜引流与经皮引流治疗感染性包裹性坏死：一项比较分析
【一句话概览】
本数据集是 figshare 公开的结构化表格数据集，收录 2 个文件、合计 55.46 KB，主题涵盖 Pancreatic fluid collections、endoscopic ultrasound、percutaneous catheter drainage、pancreatitis、direct endoscopic necrosectomy，可用于统计建模、特征工程与队列分析，CC BY 4.0 许可开放获取。
【数据集背景】
本数据集源站标题为《Endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for the management of infected walled-off necrosis: a comparative analysis》。配套论文《Endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for the management of infected walled-off necrosis: a comparative analysis》发表于 Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology（2022），DOI：10.1080/17474124.2022.2047649。项目资助方：This paper was not funded.。源站首次发布：2022-03-08。
【数据内容】
源站原始描述：Comparative data on percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) vs EUS-guided drainage (EUS-D) for management of symptomatic walled-off-necrosis (WON), specially infected WON with/without organ failure(OF) is limited. Patients with symptomatic WON were divided into two groups of PCD and EUS-D, depending on the modality of drainage. Resolution of OF, adverse events, and other outcome measures were recorded. The two modalities were compared among infected WON sub-cohort and also degree of solid component…
【数据结构与技术规格】
文件数 2 个，合计 55.46 KB。ierh_a_2047649_sm1616.docx：application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document，23.06 KB。ierh_a_2047649_sm1384.tiff：image/tiff，32.39 KB。数据集 DOI：10.6084/m9.figshare.19322257.v1。
【主题与分类】
源站学科分类：Medicine、Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified、Mathematical Sciences not elsewhere classified、Cancer、Infectious Diseases。主题标签：Pancreatic fluid collections、endoscopic ultrasound、percutaneous catheter drainage、pancreatitis、direct endoscopic necrosectomy。
【适用方向】
结构化表格数据可直接用于统计建模、特征工程与队列分析。
【获取与许可】
源站页面：https://tandf.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Endoscopic_drainage_versus_percutaneous_drainage_for_the_management_of_infected_walled-off_necrosis_a_comparative_analysis/19322257
使用许可：CC BY 4.0（https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/）。
规范引用：Endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for the management of infected walled-off necrosis: a comparative analysis. Taylor & Francis. Samanta, Jayanta; Dhar, Jahnvi; Muktesh, Gaurav; Gupta, Pankaj; Kumar-M, Praveen; Das, Aritra; et al
【使用注意】
· 源站最后修改于 2023-06-01，引用时请注意版本时效。
下载信息
注册下载
需要注册 Kaggle 账号并登录后下载，适合需要跟踪下载记录和使用 API 的用户。
暂未开放公开下载
无需注册即可直接获取公开样本或文档，适合快速预览和评估数据集质量。
免登录有偿下载
公开数据集受托下载与技术交付服务。
提供高速下载与技术交付服务（收技术服务费，非数据销售）
暂未开放当前数据集主要来源为 Kaggle 公开托管，完整影像包建议通过原始链接或 Kaggle API 获取。
使用方式
数据集获取（Figshare）
- 源站标题：Endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for the management of infected walled-off necrosis: a comparative analysis
- DOI：10.6084/m9.figshare.19322257.v1
- 发布日期：2022-03-08
- 文件数：2 个
- 文件总体积：55.46 KB
- 源站页面：https://tandf.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Endoscopic_drainage_versus_percutaneous_drainage_for_the_management_of_infected_walled-off_necrosis_a_comparative_analysis/19322257
命令行下载
curl -L -o "ierh_a_2047649_sm1616.docx" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/34317280"
curl -L -o "ierh_a_2047649_sm1384.tiff" "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/34317283"
文件清单
ierh_a_2047649_sm1616.docx（23.06 KB）ierh_a_2047649_sm1384.tiff（32.39 KB）
文件总体积 55.46 KB（源站 API 实测）。
数据加载示例（图像类）
from PIL import Image
import glob, os
files = (glob.glob(os.path.join(path, "**", "*.png"), recursive=True)
+ glob.glob(os.path.join(path, "**", "*.jpg"), recursive=True)
+ glob.glob(os.path.join(path, "**", "*.tif"), recursive=True))
print("图像文件数:", len(files))
img = Image.open(files[0]); print("尺寸/模式:", img.size, img.mode)
# torchvision Dataset 方式:
# from torchvision import datasets
# ds = datasets.ImageFolder(path) # 要求 子目录=类别
目录组织与标注格式以源站说明和下载后实际文件为准。
数据说明
Comparative data on percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) vs EUS-guided drainage (EUS-D) for management of symptomatic walled-off-necrosis (WON), specially infected WON with/without organ failure(OF) is limited.
Patients with symptomatic WON were divided into two groups of PCD and EUS-D, depending on the modality of drainage. Resolution of OF, adverse events, and other outcome measures were recorded. The two modalities were compared among infected WON sub-cohort and also degree of solid component (SC).
218 patients (175 males; 80.3%) were included who underwent either PCD (n = 102) or EUS-D (n = 116). Clinical success was significantly higher in the EUS-D group (92.1% vs 64.6%; p 40% SC had the worst clinical success/OF resolution rates, while EUS-D with EUS-D should be preferred over PCD in the management of WON, infected or otherwise, for higher clinical success, and higher/faster resolution of OF. PCD should be avoided in WON with>40% SC.
许可
CC BY 4.0
引用
学术使用请引用 DOI 10.6084/m9.figshare.19322257.v1（source: https://tandf.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Endoscopic_drainage_versus_percutaneous_drainage_for_the_management_of_infected_walled-off_necrosis_a_comparative_analysis/19322257）。
数据缺失？
依托陕西、四川两大基地，我们与超过十家三甲医院建立直接合作关系，覆盖合规授权、采集治理、专业标注、数据交付的全流程，为AI医疗团队提供即拿即用的高质量临床数据。
⚡️ 需要数据支持或标注服务？立即联系我们获取专业方案。
