The influence of psychological factors on the outcomes of laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychological factors play a role in a variety of gastrointestinal illness, including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Their impact on the surgical outcomes of antireflux surgery is unknown. METHODS: This is a single institution prospective controlled trial, comparing patients undergoing a laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for GERD (LNF Group, n = 17) to patients undergoing an elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for biliary colic (Control Group, n = 10). All patients had a psychological assessment before surgery, at 3 months and 6 months after surgery (i.e. Symptom CheckList-90-R somatization subset (SCL-90-R), Depression Anxiety Stress Scales, Anxiety sensitivity index, Illness attitude scale and Beck Depression Inventory II). GERD symptoms were recorded in the LNF Group using a standardized questionnaire (score 0-60). Patients with post-operative GERD symptoms score above 12 at 6 months were evaluated specifically. Statistical analysis was performed using a Student T test, and statistical significance was set at 0.05. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in preoperative and postoperative psychological assessment between the two groups. In the LNF Group, 7 patients had persisting GERD symptoms at 6 months (GERD score greater than 12). The preoperative SCL-90-R score was also significantly higher in this subgroup, when compared to the rest of the LNF Group (18.2 versus 8.3, p < 0.05) and to the Control Group (18.2 versus 7.9, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference for the other psychological tests. CONCLUSION: The SCL-90-R Somatization Subset, reflecting the level of somatization in a patient, may be useful to predict poor outcomes after antireflux surgery. Cognizance of psychological disorders could improve the selection of an optimal treatment for GERD and help reduce the rate of ongoing symptoms after LNF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".