[Laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer in overweight women].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic staging of overweight women with endometrial cancer and to compare the surgical outcomes among these patients with those managed by laparotomy. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis (Canadian Task-force Classification II-3). We reviewed operative and hospital records of 70 patients with a body mass index >25 kg/m2 who underwent surgical treatment for endometrial cancer between 2001 and 2008. Thirty-five patients treated laparoscopically were compared to an equivalent group of patients treated by laparotomy. Operative and postoperative variables were afterwards assessed. RESULTS: Women in laparoscopic group had a significantly lower blood loss (median, 25th-75th percentiles: 1.2, 0.8-2.0 in laparoscopic versus 1.8, 1.0-2.8 in laparotomic group, P<0.05). No differences between both group in terms of operative time (median, 25th-75th percentiles: 165 min, 130-183 in laparoscopic versus 135 min, 110-170 in laparotomic; P>0.05) and mean number of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes removed (22 ± 8.4 versus 24 ± 6.2 and 9.2 ± 2.5 versus 9.3 ± 5 respectively; P>0.05). Length of urethral catheter and hospital stay were statistically higher in laparotomic group (two days versus three days; four days versus seven days respectively; P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery in overweight women with endometrial cancer had equivalent surgical staging than women operated by laparotomy. With regard to postsurgical variables, overweight women who underwent laparoscopic surgery had better results than those treated by laparotomy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".