MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114027188 · doi:10.1155/2013/789625

A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis to Assess Patient‐Reported Outcomes after Lung Cancer Surgery

2013· review· en· W2114027188 on OpenAlexaff
Sayf Gazala, Jean‐Sébastien Pelletier, Dale Storie, Jeffrey Johnson, Demetrios J. Kutsogiannis, Eric L.R. Bédard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific World JOURNAL · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerThoracotomyMeta-analysisLung cancer surgeryQuality of life (healthcare)Systematic reviewMEDLINESurgeryGeneral surgeryOncologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this review was to systematically review, assess, and report on the studies that have assessed health related quality of life (HRQOL) after VATS and thoracotomy for resection of lung cancer. We performed a systematic review of six databases. The Downs and Black tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Five studies were included. In general, patients undergoing VATS have a better HRQOL when compared to thoracotomy; however, there was a high risk of bias in the included studies. The consistent use of a lung cancer specific questionnaire for measuring HRQOL after surgery is encouraged.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scientific World JOURNALSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207