Perioperative outcomes after radical cystectomy at NCI-designated centres: Are they any better?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 1971, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) introduced a network of NCI-designated Cancer Centers (CC), which underwent a comprehensive approval process relying on research, education and prevention activities. In this study, we examine the effect of CC status on perioperative outcomes after radical cystectomy (RC). METHODS: Within the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we focused on RC performed from 2006 to 2010. As all recognized centres were residency teaching institutions, we stratified according to teaching and CC-teaching status. We examined the rates of in-hospital mortality, intra- and postoperative complications, prolonged length of hospital stay, as well as blood transfusion. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were further adjusted for confounding factors. RESULTS: Overall, 22 840 RC patients (5451 at non-teaching, 10 857 at residency teaching, 6532 at CC-teaching institutions) were identified. Patients treated at residency teaching and CC-teaching institutions were younger, had less comorbidities, and more likely to have private insurance. In multivariable analyses, patients treated at residency and CC-teaching institutions were less likely to experience postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.73 and 0.66, respectively) and blood transfusions (OR 0.77 and 0.53, respectively) relative to patients treated at non-teaching institutions. In addition, CC patients were also less likely to experience in-hospital mortality (OR 0.61, all p < 0.001) as compared to non-teaching institutions. CONCLUSIONS: On average, patients treated at residency and CC-teaching institutions are less likely to experience unfavourable outcomes after RC. Moreover, patients treated at CC fared better than patients treated at residency teaching institutions. Our findings acknowledge the quality of RC care at accredited centres.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".