Equivalency of Lymph Node Harvest in Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Cancer Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the number of lymph nodes harvested in laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery early in a surgeon's career. METHODS: We reviewed the data of 80 patients operated upon with a primary diagnosis of colorectal cancer between September 2006 and June 2008. All data were from a single fellowship trained colorectal surgeon. The effects of laparoscopic versus open surgery, and neoadjuvant radiation were examined to assess lymph node harvest. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the lymph nodes harvested during laparoscopic versus open surgery (17.4 vs 18.5; P=0.5920). The amount of lymph nodes harvested decreased with increasing American Society of Anesthesiology grade (22.4, 17.1, 19.2, 7.0 for American Society of Anesthesiology grade I, II, III, IV, respectively; P=0.0412) and with neoadjuvant radiotherapy (18.7 vs 13.2; P=0.0151). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery results in the same number of lymph nodes being harvested as in open surgery.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".