Outcomes of Daytime Procedures Performed by Attending Surgeons after Night Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sleep loss in attending physicians has an unclear effect on patient outcomes. In this study, we examined the effect of medical care provided by physicians after midnight on the outcomes of their scheduled elective procedures performed during the day. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, retrospective, matched-cohort study in Ontario, Canada. Patients undergoing 1 of 12 elective daytime procedures performed by a physician who had treated patients from midnight to 7 a.m. were matched in a 1:1 ratio to patients undergoing the same procedure by the same physician on a day when the physician had not treated patients after midnight. Outcomes included death, readmission, complications, length of stay, and procedure duration. We used generalized estimating equations to compare outcomes between patient groups. RESULTS: We included 38,978 patients, treated by 1448 physicians, in the study, of whom 40.6% were treated at an academic center. We found no significant difference in the primary outcome (death, readmission, or complication) between patients who underwent a daytime procedure performed by a physician who had provided patient care after midnight and those who underwent a procedure performed by a physician who had not treated patients after midnight (22.2% and 22.4%, respectively; P=0.66; adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.03). We also found no significant difference in outcomes after stratification for academic versus nonacademic center, physician's age, or type of procedure. Secondary analyses revealed no significant difference between patient groups in length of stay or procedure duration. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the risks of adverse outcomes of elective daytime procedures were similar whether or not the physician had provided medical services the previous night. (Funded by the University of Toronto Dean's Fund and others.).
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".