Totally Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery: Comparison of the Apron and Retrocolic Techniques in a Porcine Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the learning curve for a second-year general surgery resident and compared 2 totally laparoscopic aortic surgery techniques in 10 pigs: the transretroperitoneal apron approach and the transperitoneal retrocolic approach. Five end points were compared: success rate, percentage of conversion, time required, laparoscopic anastomosis quality, and learning curve. The first 3 interventions required an open conversion. The last 7 were done without complications. Mean dissection time was significantly higher with the apron approach compared with the retrocolic approach. The total times for operation, clamping, and arteriotomy time were similar. All laparoscopic anastomoses were patent and without stenosis. The initial learning curve for laparoscopic anastomosis was relatively short for a second-year surgery resident. Both techniques resulted in satisfactory exposure of the aorta and similar mean operative and clamping time. Training on an ex vivo laparoscopic box trainer and on an animal model seems to be complementary to decrease laparoscopic anastomosis completion time.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it