A Pilot Study of the Incidence of Post-thoracotomy Pulmonary Complications and the Effectiveness of Pre-thoracotomy Physiotherapy Patient Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To estimate the incidence and examine the pattern of post-thoracotomy pulmonary complications (PPC) that are amenable to physiotherapy treatment and to estimate the effect size of a pre-thoracotomy physiotherapy education session compared to no preoperative physiotherapy for reducing PPC. METHODS: Forty-two patients undergoing thoracotomy participated in this two-group retrospective-prospective cohort study. The preop group (n=22) received physiotherapy education prior to surgery and the no preop group (n=20) did not receive preoperative physiotherapy education. Chest radiographs were examined for PPC for 5 days postoperatively. Incidences of PPC were determined. The effect size was based on a grand count of PPC. RESULTS: The 5-day incidence of atelectasis, collapse, consolidation, and other complications was 85.0%, 39.0%, 31.7%, and 38.1%, respectively. Patterns of PPC showed large increases at days 2 and 3. The effect size for pre-thoracotomy physiotherapy education was zero. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, incidence of PPC was high and did not substantially differ based on whether or not preoperative education was provided.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".