Volume and process of care in high‐risk cancer surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although relations between procedure volume and operative mortality are well established for high-risk cancer operations, differences in clinical practice between high-volume and low-volume centers are not well understood. The current study was conducted to examine relations between hospital volume, process of care, and operative mortality in cancer surgery. METHODS: Using the Medicare claims database (2000-2002), we identified all patients undergoing major resections for lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, or pancreatic cancer (n=71,558). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative processes of care potentially related to operative mortality were identified from inpatient, outpatient, and physician claims files using appropriate International Classification of Diseases--Clinical Modification (ICD-9) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. We then assessed variation in the use of each process according to hospital volume, adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure type. Study Participants were US Medicare patients. The main outcome measure was specific processes of care. RESULTS: Relative to those at low-volume centers (lowest 20th by volume), patients at high-volume hospitals (highest 20th) were significantly more likely to undergo stress tests (odds ratio [OR]: 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-1.87), but not other preoperative imaging tests. They were more likely to see medical or radiation oncologists (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.16-1.62), but not other specialists, preoperatively. Although blood transfusions and use of epidural pain management did not vary significantly by volume, patients at high-volume hospitals had significantly longer operations and were more likely to receive perioperative invasive monitoring (OR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.82-3.60). Differences in measurable processes of care did not explain volume-related differences in operative mortality to any significant degree. CONCLUSIONS: Although high-volume and low-volume hospitals differ with regard to many aspects of perioperative care, mechanisms underlying volume-outcome relations in high-risk cancer surgery remain to be identified.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".