Results of Introducing a Rapid Recovery Program for Total Abdominal Hysterectomy
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
OBJECTIVE: To review the impact of implementing a rapid recovery protocol (RRP) for patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. SETTING: Metropolitan teaching hospital. POPULATION: Women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy for non-malignant indications. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive cases performed during study periods before and after the introduction of an elective rapid recovery program emphasizing regional anesthesia. To control for universal improvements in medical practice, charts from a comparable local hospital without an RRP were also reviewed. RESULTS: 400 charts were reviewed and 366 cases met inclusion criteria and had sufficient information. Patients were well matched for demographic and medical variables between the study periods and between the institutions. The median length of stay (LOS) fell dramatically from 3 (range 1-12) days prior to RRP introduction to 1 (range 1-17) day after RRP (p < 0.001). LOS among patients at the 'control' institution remained unchanged at 3 days during the same time frame, indicating that external pressures contributed minimally to the observed changes. There were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, duration of surgery, or complication rate between the groups in either time period. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a rapid recovery program was associated with shorter hospitalization and did not appear to compromise surgical outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 it