Measuring Surgical Recovery: The Study of Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), recovery has only been studied using traditional outcomes, subjective and confounded by comorbidity and psychosocial variables. The purpose of this study is to estimate surgical recovery following LDN using standardized, validated instruments and to compare this recovery profile to that obtained with traditional measures. This was a prospective study of patients undergoing LDN at a single institution between September 2001 and January 2004 (n = 35). At baseline and 4 weeks following surgery, functional exercise capacity was measured using the 6-min walk test (6MWT) and health-related quality of life was assessed with the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire, including physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores. Patients' self-assessment of recovery and time to resumption of regular activities was ascertained. At follow-up (median 29 days), patients' 6MWT was lower by a median of 30 m (p = 0.07) and PCS decreased from 57.1 to 42.3 (p = 0.0001), whereas MCS remained constant. Overall, length of stay, return to activities and patient-stated recovery were inadequate outcomes for classifying patient recovery using 6MWT and PCS as the reference standards. Four weeks following LLDN, patients have returned to baseline exercise capacity, but not baseline general physical health. Traditional measures of recovery are incomplete descriptors of recovery.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".