MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparing Preoperative Targets to Failure-to-Rescue for Surgical Mortality Improvement

2015· article· en· W2039913270 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph A. Hyder, Elliot Wakeam, Joel T. Adler, Ann D. Smith, Stuart R. Lipsitz, Louis L. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMortality ratePopulationAbdominal aortic aneurysmRisk of mortalityInternal medicineSurgeryEmergency medicineAneurysmEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Failure-to-rescue (FTR or death after postoperative complication) is thought to explain surgical mortality excesses across hospitals, and FTR is an emerging performance measure and target for quality improvement. We compared the FTR population to preoperatively identifiable subpopulations for their potential to close the mortality gap between lowest- and highest-mortality hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Patients undergoing small bowel resection, pancreatectomy, colorectal resection, open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, lower extremity arterial bypass, and nephrectomy were identified in the 2007 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Lowest- and highest-mortality hospitals were defined using risk- and reliability-adjusted mortality quintiles. Five target subpopulations were established a priori: the FTR population, predicted high-mortality risk (predicted highest-risk quintile), emergency surgery, elderly (>75 years old), and diabetic patients. RESULTS: Across the lowest mortality quintile (n=282 hospitals, 56,893 patients) and highest-mortality quintile (282 hospitals, 45,784 patients), respectively, the size of target subpopulations varied only for the FTR population (20.2% vs 22.4%, p=0.002) but not for other subpopulations. Variation in mortality rates across lowest- and highest-mortality hospitals was greatest for the high-mortality risk (7.5% vs 20.2%, p<0.0001) and FTR subpopulations (7.8% vs 18.9%, p<0.0001). The FTR and high-risk populations had comparable sensitivity (81% and 75%) and positive predictive value (19% and 20%, respectively) for mortality. In Monte Carlo simulations, the mortality gap between the lowest- and highest-mortality hospitals was reduced by nearly 75% when targeting the FTR population or the high-risk population, 78% for the emergency surgery population, but less for elderly (51%) and diabetic (17%) populations. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperatively identifiable patients with high estimated mortality risk may be preferable to the FTR population as a target for surgical mortality reduction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of SurgeonsSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207