MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Open radical prostatectomy in the elderly: a case for concern?

2011· article· en· W1515113230 on OpenAlexaff
Quoc‐Dien Trinh, Jan Schmitges, Maxine Sun, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Shyam Sukumar, Zhe Tian, Marco Bianchi, Jesse D. Sammon, Paul Perrotte, Craig Rogers, Markus Graefen, James O. Peabody, Mani Menon, Pierre I. Karakiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyCohortAdverse effectLogistic regressionComplicationBlood transfusionMortality rateSurgeryEmergency medicineInternal medicineProstate cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Study Type--Therapy (case series). Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? And what does the study add? Adverse outcomes after radical prostatectomy are more often recorded in the elderly. In the USA, elderly patients undergoing radical prostatectomy are treated at institutions where suboptimal outcomes are recorded. OBJECTIVE: • To assess the rate of adverse outcomes after open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in the elderly and to examine the effect of annual hospital caseload (AHC) and academic institutional status on adverse outcomes in these of patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Within the Health Care Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we focused on ORPs performed between 1998 and 2007. Subsequently, we restricted to patients aged ≥75 years. • In both datasets, we examined transfusion rates, intra-operative and postoperative complication rates, and in-hospital mortality rates. • Stratification was performed according to AHC tertiles and academic status. • Multivariable logistic regression analyses were fitted. RESULTS: • Of 115,554 ORP patients, 2109 (1.8%) were aged ≥75 years. • In multivariable analyses performed in the entire cohort, elderly age increased homologous blood transfusion rates (P < 0.001), intra-operative (P= 0.001) and postoperative (P < 0.001) complication rates, and the mortality rate (P= 0.007). • Most elderly were treated at low or intermediate AHC (68.5%) and non-academic centres (56.2%). • Within the elderly cohort, intra-operative (2.9%) and postoperative (22.2%) complications tended to be highest at low AHC institutions compared to institutions of intermediate (2.7% and 17.4%) and high AHC (1.7% and 14.5%). Similarly, intra-operative (2.7% vs 2.1%) and postoperative complications (19.1% vs 13.9%) tended to be higher at non-academic than academic centres. • In multivariable analyses performed in the elderly subgroup, low AHC predicted higher intra-operative complications and higher homologous transfusions, whereas non-academic status predicted higher postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: • Adverse outcomes are more often recorded in the elderly. • Most elderly are treated at institutions where suboptimal outcomes are recorded.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207