Early feeding and the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms after major gynecologic surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare early feeding with traditional postoperative dietary management for development of postoperative gastrointestinal symptoms, including ileus after major gynecologic surgery for benign conditions. METHODS: Women who had major gynecologic surgery for benign conditions were randomly allocated to early feeding of low residue diets 6 hours postoperatively or traditional dietary management of clear liquids with normal bowel sounds, and regular diet with passage of flatus. Demographic and perioperative data were collected, and patients answered questionnaires on their perception of bowel function and pain using the McGill Pain Scale. Power analysis found that 130 women were needed to find a twofold greater incidence of ileus in the early feeding group with 80% power and alpha =.05. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 139 women, 67 allocated to the early feeding group and 72 to the late feeding group. The incidence of postoperative ileus for the study population was 4.4% and did not differ between groups (early 3% versus late 5. 8%, P =.68). There were no differences in patient demographics, surgical procedures, anesthesia used, and intraoperative complications between groups. With the exception of more complaints of nausea in the late feeding group (23% versus 13%, P =.04), there were no differences in other postoperative variables, including other perioperative complications, pain medicine requirements, fluid and caloric intake, median pain scores, and gastrointestinal function. The low incidence of perioperative complications made the power to detect differences between groups low. CONCLUSION: Low residue diet 6 hours after major gynecologic surgery for benign indications was not associated with increased postoperative gastrointestinal complaints, including ileus.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| 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".