Midterm Outcomes of Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the authors examine midterm survival and recurrence after laparoscopic and open surgery for rectal cancer. This is a retrospective review of a prospective database for rectal cancer surgeries performed at the authors' institution, with follow-up data obtained through chart review. In all, 74 patients in this study had open surgery, and 93 had laparoscopic surgery. The 5-year overall survival was 73.6% ± 12.0% in the open group and 80.0% ± 12.8% in the laparoscopic group (P = .159). Disease-free survival at 5 years was better in the laparoscopic group (71.0% ± 13.4%) than in the open group (50.3% ± 12.7%), with a P value of .01. Laparoscopic surgery remained an independent predictor of disease-free survival in the multivariate analysis. Results of prospective randomized trials are awaited, and the authors expect that the laparoscopic approach will be shown to be a safe and effective option for the management of rectal cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".