MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324164518 · doi:10.1093/icvts/ivu167.30

O-030 * THE BURDEN OF DEATH FOLLOWING DISCHARGE AFTER LOBECTOMY

2014· article· en· W2324164518 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura Schneider, Forough Farrokhyar, Adam Bassili, Yaron Shargall, Colin Schieman, Waël C. Hanna, Christian Finley

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerCOPDHazard ratioLogistic regressionInternal medicineProportional hazards modelComorbidityOdds ratioPopulationSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Pulmonary lobectomy is the most commonly performed surgery for lung cancer and remains the gold standard operative treatment. The reported surgical mortality from this procedure rarely differentiates between in-hospital mortality (IHM) and early post-discharge mortality (PDM). Within this study, we aim to examine the IHM and 90-day PDM over time and identify outcome predictors including patient characteristics, comorbidity, and system level factors. Methods: Data from 2005 to 2011 were acquired from a linked Ontario population-based database and we reported proportional mortality and cumulative survival attributable to IHM and PDM. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed to examine the role of variables associated with mortality. Results: Of 5389 patients who underwent lobectomy for non-small-cell lung cancer, median length of stay was 6 (1-30) days. IHM was 1.4% (n = 73) and PDM was an additional 1.9% (n = 101) within 90 days post-lobectomy discharge. Logistic regression suggests age [odds ratio (OR): 1.5 (1.3-1.8)], MI [OR: 3.6 (1.8-7.0)], CHF [OR: 5.8 (2.4-13.8)], COPD [OR: 1.9 (1.1-3.2)], preoperative PET [OR: 2.7 (1.1-7.0)], peptic ulcer disease [OR: 22.1 (4.1-117.4)], hemiplegia [OR: 15.8 (1.8-141.1)], primary lung cancer [OR: 0.5 (0.3-0.8)] and year of surgery [OR: 1.0 (0.8-1.0)] were predictive of IHM. Length of hospital stay [hazard ratio (HR): 1.1 (1.0-1.1)], male gender [HR: 1.5 (1.0-2.3)], age [HR: 1.1 (1.0-1.3)], metastatic cancer [HR: 2.6 (1.7-4.0)] were predictive of PDM. All other factors were not significant. Conclusions: PDM represents a substantive and under-reported burden of operative mortality. More than half of post-lobectomy mortality occurs post-discharge and the rate remained unchanged over the study while IHM fell with time, suggesting that the improvement seen in mortality is exclusive to the smaller IHM. Patient factors play a significant role in both IHM and PDM, which identifies the importance of appropriate patient selection and a need for continued investigation of risk factors of this significant mortality. Disclosure: No significant relationships.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic SurgerySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207