Obesity is not associated with adverse outcome following surgical resection of oesophageal adenocarcinoma☆
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of obesity on postoperative morbidity and outcome following surgical resection of primary oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EADC). METHODS: From a prospective database, we compared clinicopathological findings (age, gender, surgical approach, tumour differentiation and stage), postoperative mortality, morbidity, length of hospitalisation, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between 56 obese (body mass index (BMI)≥30 mgkg(-2)) and 86 non-obese (BMI<30 mgkg(-2)) patients with EADC. RESULTS: In this consecutive series, there were 118 male and 24 female patients with a median age of 63 years (range, 36-85 years). For all patients, the 5-year OS was 26.9%, with a median survival of 20 months. No significant differences (P>0.05) were found between obese and non-obese patients, with respect to age, gender, surgical approach (transthoracic vs transhiatal), pT-stage, duration of hospital stay, postoperative mortality or morbidity. However, compared with non-obese patients, obese patients had a higher frequency of postoperative respiratory complications (odds ratio (OR), 3.05; 95% confidence intervals (CIs), 1.29-7.17). DFS and OS at 5 years were increased for patients who were obese at the time of oesophageal resection (P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is not associated with increased postoperative complication rates or adverse outcome following oesophageal resection, and should therefore not be considered a relative contraindication to the surgical management of EADC. The improved survival of obese patients who underwent oesophageal resection for EADC suggests that further investigation of the association between obesity and oesophageal malignancy is now warranted.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".