Robotic‐assisted hepatic resection: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, hepatic resections are being performed with robotic-assisted systems. There is little evidence regarding the outcomes of this surgical approach. This study aims to systematically review the outcomes related to robotic-assisted hepatic resections. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases was completed. All human studies, limited to adults, published between 2000 to August 2011 were included. RESULTS: Eight studies yielded a total of 170 procedures. The overall morbidity rate was 11.6% (range 0-39%). There were no mortalities reported following robotic-assisted hepatic resection. Mean operative time was 264.8 minutes, with a mean hospital length of stay of 7.8 days. Rate of conversion was 6.6%. Cost was greater than either laparoscopy or open hepatic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review suggests robotic-assisted hepatic resection is safe and feasible, with low mortality and morbidity rates. Further research is needed to determine if oncological outcomes are similar.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it