A Comparison of Pre-Operative Nutritional Status with Post-Operative Morbidity and Mortality in Obese Esophageal Surgery Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The nutrition state of obese patients scheduled to undergo esophageal surgery was evaluated using two nutritional score systems: the mini nutritional assessment (MNA) and the prognostic and nutritional index (PINI). A further comparison of various proteins, lymphocytes and cholesterol was performed using biochemical tests. These factors were compared with post-operative morbidity and mortality in a prospective, descriptive clinical study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 34 obese patients undergoing esophagus resection due to cancer, who were examined over four years using both scoring systems to analyze whether nutritional status influences the outcome of surgery. The patients were divided into four groups based on the severity of the outcome and their MNA and PINI scores were analyzed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the nutritional status of survivors and deceased patients. The European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN) nutritional risk score was 1.35 ± 0.47 for Group I and 1.47 ± 0.58 for Group II (p = 0.62). With respect to severe morbidity there was no significant difference between Group III and Group IV: 2.01 ± 2.28 vs. 1.02 ± 3.67 (p = 0.54). Although there were minor differences, there were no major variations seen in the MNA or PINI scores comparing the four examined groups. No significant changes were observed in the biochemical parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The study found no differences between post-operative morbidity or mortality and the pre-operative nutrition status of obese patients who underwent surgery due to esophageal 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".