Quality of life is excellent after a pelvic pouch for colitis-associated neoplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite high patient satisfaction with a pelvic pouch, patients experience some bowel dysfunction. Patients whose indication for surgery is neoplasia may have near-normal preoperative bowel function. We hypothesized that these patients would be less accepting of a poorer functional status after surgery, reflected in a poorer measure of quality of life. METHOD: Sixteen patients who had dysplasia or cancer as the primary indication for surgery were compared with a matched control group whose indication for surgery was failed medical therapy. Quality of life was assessed using one disease-specific instrument, the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire, two generic quality-of-life instruments, the Sickness Impact Profile and the Short Form 36, and two utility assessments. RESULTS: The groups were well matched with no significant differences in functional outcome. Quality-of-life scores were high in both groups and there were no significant differences in overall quality of life between the two groups using all five instruments. There was evidence of a response shift phenomenon in the failed medical therapy control group. CONCLUSION: Quality of life of patients who have a pelvic pouch for colitis-associated neoplasia is excellent and the same as that of patients who have a pouch for failure of medical therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".