Consensus and controversy in hepatic surgery: A survey of Canadian surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in practice provides an opportunity for further study, as it may [IRT Rev 1] reflect deficiencies in knowledge translation or knowledge gaps. This survey aimed to assess practice patterns for the surgical treatment of malignancies of the liverwith the goal of identifying areas of variability. METHODS: We created a web-based survey focusing on scope of surgical practice, pre-and post-operative measures and practice patterns for liver and biliary surgery. We piloted the survey for clarity and made changes as needed. All members of the Canadian Hepato-Pancreatico-Biliary Association (CHPBA) were invited to participate. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results. RESULTS: The survey was sent to sixty-nine surgeons and thirty-six (52%) completed the survey in its entirety. Areas of agreement include defining the resectability of a tumourand in imaging modalities used to determine resectability. Variability surrounded utlilization of blood conservation strategies, withlow CVP anesthesia frequently used and all other strategies (autologous blood donation, acute normovolemic hemodilution, cell-saver, and tranexamic acid) rarely used. Post-operative analgesic technique was variable with epidural analgesia (50%) and IV-PCA (35.3%) nearly equally preferred. CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in some techniques and approaches used by hepatobiliary surgeons. Future research focusing on areas of uncertainty including techniques of blood conservation and post-operative analgesia are needed.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".