MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measuring Surgical Quality: Comparison of Postoperative Adverse Events with the American College of Surgeons NSQIP and the Thoracic Morbidity and Mortality Classification System

2014· article· en· W1989355933 on OpenAlexaff
Jelena Ivanovic, Andrew Seely, Caitlin Anstee, Patrick J. Villeneuve, Sébastien Gilbert, Donna E. Maziak, Farid M. Shamji, Alan J. Forster, Sudhir R. Sundaresan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiothoracic surgeryUnivariate analysisAdverse effectSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyMultivariate analysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Monitoring surgical outcomes is critical to quality improvement; however, different data-collection methodologies can provide divergent evaluations of surgical outcomes. We compared postoperative adverse event reporting on the same patients using 2 classification systems: the retrospectively recorded American College of Surgeons (ACS) NSQIP and the prospectively collected Thoracic Morbidity and Mortality (TM&M) system. STUDY DESIGN: Using the TM&M system, complications and deaths were documented daily by fellows and reviewed weekly by staff for all thoracic surgical cases conducted at our institution (April 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011). The ACS NSQIP recording was performed 30 to 120 days after index surgery by trained surgical clinical reviewers on a systemic sampling of major cases during the same time period. Univariate analyses of the data were performed. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,788 thoracic procedures were performed (1,091 were designated "major," as per ACS NSQIP inclusion criteria). The ACS NSQIP evaluated 182 of these procedures, representing 21.1% and 16.7% of patients and procedures, respectively. Mortality rates were 1.4% in TM&M vs 2.2% in ACS NSQIP (p = 0.42). Total patients and procedures with complications reported were 24.4% and 31.1% by TM&M vs 20.2% and 39.0% by ACS NSQIP (p = 0.23 and 0.03), respectively. Rates of reported cardiac complications were higher in TM&M vs ACS NSQIP (5.8% vs 1.1%; p = 0.01), and wound complications were lower (2.5% vs 6.0%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although overall rates were similar, significant differences in collection, definitions, and classification of postoperative adverse events were observed when comparing TM&M and ACS NSQIP. Although both systems offer complementary value, harmonization of definitions and severity classification would enhance quality-improvement programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations44
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of SurgeonsSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207