MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983070174 · doi:10.1002/bjs.6787

Population-based trend analysis of 2813 patients undergoing laparoscopic sigmoid resection

2009· article· en· W1983070174 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrich Güller, Laura C. Rosella, Paul J. Karanicolas, Michel Adamina, Dieter Hahnloser

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish journal of surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverticular Disease and Complications
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersJohnson and Johnson
KeywordsMedicineDiverticular diseaseSurgeryResectionComplicationProspective cohort studyLaparoscopic surgeryLaparoscopyGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The use of laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease has become increasingly popular. The objective of this trend analysis was to assess whether clinical outcomes following laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease have improved over the past 10 years. METHODS: The analysis was based on the prospective database of the Swiss Association of Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery. Some 2813 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticular disease from 1995 to 2006 were included. Unadjusted and risk-adjusted analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over time, there was a significant reduction in the conversion rate (from 27.3 to 8.6 per cent; P(trend) < 0.001), local postoperative complication rate (23.6 to 6.2 per cent; P(trend) = 0.004), general postoperative complication rate (14.6 to 4.9 per cent; P(trend) = 0.024) and reoperation rate (5.5 to 0.6 per cent; P(trend) = 0.015). Postoperative median length of hospital stay significantly decreased from 11 to 7 days (P(trend) < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This first trend analysis in the literature of clinical outcomes after laparoscopic sigmoid resection, based on almost 3000 patients, has provided compelling evidence that rates of postoperative complications, conversion and reoperation, and length of hospital stay have decreased significantly over the past 10 years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish journal of surgerySame topicDiverticular Disease and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207