A Clinician's Guide to Patient Selection for Watchful Waiting Management of Inguinal Hernia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assist surgeons in managing patients with minimally symptomatic inguinal hernia by identifying characteristics that predict crossover to surgery or worsening of hernia symptoms. BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have suggested that watchful waiting management of minimally symptomatic inguinal hernia is an acceptable alternative to surgical repair. However, these trials found that roughly a quarter of patients would elect for repair in the first 2 years, suggesting that not all patients are good candidates for watchful waiting. METHODS: The 336 patients randomized to watchful waiting in the American College of Surgeons Watchful Waiting Hernia Trial constituted the study population. Preoperative patient characteristics were used to predict 2 outcomes, either crossover to surgery or the development of hernia pain limiting activities and/or crossover to surgery. Patients in our study were part of a previously registered randomized trial: NCT00263250. RESULTS: At 2 years, 72 patients crossed over to surgery, with pain with strenuous activities [odds ratio (OR), 1.3 per 10-mm visual analog scale pain scale], chronic constipation (OR, 4.9), prostatism (OR, 2.9), being married (OR, 2.3), and good health [OR, 3.0 American Society of Anesthesiologists Class (ASA) 1 vs 2], predicting crossover. An additional 28 patients developed pain, limiting their activities, with pain during strenuous activities (OR, 1.3 per 10-mm visual analog scale) and chronic constipation (OR, 4.5), predicting the combined outcome of pain limiting activities and/or crossover to surgery. Higher levels of activity reduced the risk (OR, 0.95) of this combined outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Readily identifiable patient characteristics can predict those patients with minimally symptomatic inguinal hernia who are likely to "fail" watchful waiting hernia management. Consideration of these factors will allow surgeons to optimally tailor hernia management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".