Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Rectal/Pelvic Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS<sup>®</sup>) Society Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative care in rectal/pelvic surgery, and to provide graded recommendations for items for an evidenced‐based enhanced recovery protocol. Methods Studies were selected with particular attention paid to meta‐analyses, randomized controlled trials and large prospective cohorts. For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway, available English‐language literature was examined, reviewed and graded. A consensus recommendation was reached after critical appraisal of the literature by the group. Results For most of the protocol items, recommendations are based on good‐quality trials or meta‐analyses of good‐quality trials (evidence grade: high or moderate). Conclusions Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative care pathway, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN) present a comprehensive evidence‐based consensus review of perioperative care for rectal surgery.
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 | 0.036 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".