MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075187205 · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31828c4a19

Quality of Life After Gastrectomy for Adenocarcinoma

2013· article· en· W2075187205 on OpenAlexaff
Paul J. Karanicolas, Dennis Graham, Mithat Gönen, Vivian E. Strong, Murray F. Brennan, Daniel G. Coit

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineGastrectomyQuality of life (healthcare)NauseaVomitingCancerSurgeryInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)RefluxDiseaseGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Background: Gastrectomy remains a major operation with potential for significant deterioration in patients' health-related quality of life (QOL). This study assessed differences in QOL among patients after distal (DG), proximal (PG), or total (TG) gastrectomy. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients undergoing gastrectomy at our institution between 2002 and 2007. Participants completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer cancer (QLQ-C30) and gastric (QLQ-STO22) questionnaires preoperatively and at 5 postoperative intervals up to 18 months. We compared changes from baseline in patients based on extent of resection (proximal, distal, or total) using generalized linear models, adjusting for age, stage of disease, and (neo)adjuvant therapy. We converted QOL raw scores to reflect the proportion of patients with clinically significant deterioration based on the minimal important difference. Results: We included 134 patients: 82 DG, 16 PG, and 36 TG. In the immediate postoperative period, 55% of patients suffered significant impairment in their global QOL. This improved in most patients by 6 months, although 20% to 35% continued to have substantially worse QOL than before surgery. Patients who underwent PG suffered from significantly more clinical reflux [70% vs 35% (DG), 40% (TG)], nausea/vomiting (60% vs 25%, 30%), and global QOL impairment (60% vs 30%, 30%) than patients who underwent DG or TG, whose QOL scores were similar. These differences persisted up to 18 months postoperatively. Conclusions: Surgeons should discuss expectations of QOL impairment with their patients before gastrectomy and reassure them that most symptoms resolve by 6 months after operation. Patients who undergo PG suffer from worse QOL impairment than patients who undergo DG or TG. In this prospective cohort study including 134 patients undergoing gastrectomy for cancer, 55% suffered significant impairment in their global quality of life. Patients who underwent proximal gastrectomy suffered from significantly more clinical reflux, nausea/vomiting, and global quality of life impairment than patients who underwent distal or total gastrectomy. These differences persisted up to 18 months postoperatively.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.093 · 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

Citations148
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of SurgerySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207