Effect of Surgical Complications on Quality of Life after Thoracoscopic Lobectomy for Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Surgical resection is the main treatment for early stage lung cancer; the benefits of surgery, however, need to be weighed against possible complications and patients’ quality of life. Methods: We performed a cohort study following patients after video assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy at our tertiary care center. Before surgery, health related quality of life was assessed using the SF-36, the QLQ30, QLQ13 and EQ5D questionnaires. Post-operatively health related quality of life was assessed at regular intervals (2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks). A research team assessed post-operative complications on a daily basis during the patients’ hospital stay. Based on the Clavien classification system, the cohort was classified as experiencing high-grade (i.e., grade III or IV) complications or not. Changes in quality of life scores over the follow-up period were compared using linear regression with generalized estimating equations. Results: Between March and September 2011, 44 eligible patients were recruited into the study. The mean age was 65 (SD 8.7) years; 55% were male. The majority (n = 31; 71%) had no or low-grade complications. Patients experiencing high-grade complications reported significantly worse outcomes in the following domains of the SF-36: Global Health, Vitality, and Physical Functioning (p
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".