Population perception of surgical approach in minimally invasive surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to better understand the impact that public opinion might have on surgical approaches in urologic minimally invasive surgery (MIS). METHODS: We collected surveys from 400 participants, including the general population (n = 220) and paramedical staff (n = 180). Participants were anonymous. The survey included 16 questions on the characteristics and preference for the surgical approach if a urologic MIS were performed on them. RESULTS: The responders preferred the transumbilical approach (57.0%) to the subcostal approach (43.0%). In particular, the preference for a transumbilical approach was significantly higher in females (65.1% vs. 49.3%, p = 0.0014). Similarly, when participants were divided into two groups (<50 years and ≥50 years), the preference for the transumbilical approach was significantly higher in the younger group (60.8% vs. 48.0%, p = 0.0187). Logistic regression analysis revealed that preference for this approach was about 2 times more likely to rise in the females (p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Preference for the transumbilical approach was significantly higher young female respondents. This patient subset most values the cosmetic benefits of transumbilical approach in urologic MIS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".