Short-Term Health-Related Quality of Life After Abdominal Surgery: A Conceptual Framework
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
We sought to develop a conceptual framework of health-related quality of life (QOL) after abdominal surgery to assist in the development of a QOL measure suitable for use in clinical trials comparing laparoscopic and conventional surgery. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 patients within 2 weeks after an abdominal surgical procedure. Responses were transferred into an electronic spreadsheet and coded to facilitate analysis. We tabulated the frequency of similar responses and grouped response items into areas of QOL impairment. The patients ranged in age from 19 to 78 years. Six had laparoscopic procedures. Patients identified the following areas of QOL impairment (examples of specific items and frequency of response): (1) physical limitations (difficulty getting in and out of bed 52%, difficulty walking 48%), (2) functional impairment (inability to perform usual activities 100%, difficulty bathing 90%), (3) pain (pain in incision 48%, pain with coughing or movement 28%), (4) visceral function (inability to eat 48%, lack of appetite 43%), (5) sleep (frequent nighttime awakening 62%, difficulty falling asleep 33%), and (6) mood (helplessness 28%, anxiety 24%). Acute health status after abdominal surgery constitutes a unique, dynamic health state characterized by impairment in a number of different health domains. A measure of QOL after abdominal surgery should have adequate coverage of these health concepts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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