Laryngectomy Clinical Pathway: Development and Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study is to determine if the implementation of a protocol for the preoperative and postoperative care of patients receiving a laryngectomy for cancer of the larynx or hypopharynx (i.e., laryngectomy clinical pathway) reduced length and cost of hospital stay without increasing complication rates. DESIGN: This study is a comparison of the perioperative course of two groups of laryngectomy patients. Data were collected retrospectively from the records of patients operated on before the implementation of the clinical pathway as the institutional historical control. Comparison was made with data collected prospectively on patients operated on after the implementation of the clinical pathway. SETTING: The study was performed at a mid-sized teaching hospital associated with two regional cancer centres. All surgeries were performed by one of two otolaryngology-head and neck surgeons and residents under their supervision. METHODS: The demographic, patient, tumour, treatment, dietary, and complication data were analyzed. Fisher's exact (two-tailed) statistical test was used for parametric data and Wilcoxon scores for nonparametric data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The principal outcome measure was the length of postoperative inpatient stay. Secondary outcome measures were readmissions and postoperative complications. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant decrease of 6.7 days in the mean length of hospitalization in the clinical pathway group even when taking postoperative readmissions into account. There was no concomitant increase in surgical complications. The mean reduction in hospital cost per case was calculated to be $3,420 (Can). CONCLUSIONS: Application of a clinical pathway for patients receiving laryngectomy is both feasible and effective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".