MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surgeon Specialty and Operative Mortality With Lung Resection

2005· article· en· W1534984740 on OpenAlexaff
Philip P. Goodney, F. L. Lucas, Thérèse A. Stukel, John D. Birkmeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsMedicineCardiothoracic surgerySpecialtyPneumonectomyLung cancerSurgerySubspecialtyGeneral surgeryMortality rateInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the effect of subspecialty training on operative mortality following lung resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: While several different surgical subspecialists perform lung resection for cancer, many believe that this procedure is best performed by board-certified thoracic surgeons. METHODS: Using the national Medicare database 1998 to 1999, we identified patients undergoing lung resection (lobectomy or pneumonectomy) for lung cancer. Operating surgeons were identified by unique physician identifier codes contained in the discharge abstract. We used the American Board of Thoracic Surgery database, as well as physician practice patterns, to designate surgeons as general surgeons, cardiothoracic surgeons, or noncardiac thoracic surgeons. Using logistic regression models, we compared operative mortality across surgeon subspecialties, adjusting for patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 25,545 Medicare patients underwent lung resection, 36% by general surgeons, 39% by cardiothoracic surgeons, and 25% by noncardiac thoracic surgeons. Patient characteristics did not differ substantially by surgeon specialty. Adjusted operative mortality rates were lowest for cardiothoracic and noncardiac thoracic surgeons (7.6% general surgeons, 5.6% cardiothoracic surgeons, 5.8% noncardiac thoracic surgeons, P = 0.001). In analyses restricted to high-volume surgeons (>20 lung resections/y), mortality rates were lowest for noncardiac thoracic surgeons (5.1% noncardiac thoracic, 5.2% cardiothoracic, and 6.1% general surgeons) (P < 0.01 for difference between general surgeons and thoracic surgeons). In analyses restricted to high-volume hospitals (>45 lung resections/y), mortality rates were again lowest for noncardiac thoracic surgeons (5.0% noncardiac thoracic, 5.3% cardiothoracic, and 6.1% general surgeons) (P < 0.01 for differences between all 3 groups). CONCLUSIONS: Operative mortality with lung resection varies by surgeon specialty. Some, but not all, of this variation in operative mortality is attributable to hospital and surgeon volume.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations188
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of SurgerySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207