Pneumonia after Major Cancer Surgery: Temporal Trends and Patterns of Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale. Pneumonia is a leading cause of postoperative complication. Objective. To examine trends, factors, and mortality of postoperative pneumonia following major cancer surgery (MCS). Methods. From 1999 to 2009, patients undergoing major forms of MCS were identified using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), a Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) subset, resulting in weighted 2,508,916 patients. Measurements. Determinants were examined using logistic regression analysis adjusted for clustering using generalized estimating equations. Results. From 1999 to 2009, 87,867 patients experienced pneumonia following MCS and prevalence increased by 29.7%. The estimated annual percent change (EAPC) of mortality after MCS was -2.4% (95% CI: -2.9 to -2.0, P < 0.001); the EAPC of mortality associated with pneumonia after MCS was -2.2% (95% CI: -3.6 to 0.9, P = 0.01). Characteristics associated with higher odds of pneumonia included older age, male, comorbidities, nonprivate insurance, lower income, hospital volume, urban, Northeast region, and nonteaching status. Pneumonia conferred a 6.3-fold higher odd of mortality. Conclusions. Increasing prevalence of pneumonia after MCS, associated with stable mortality rates, may result from either increased diagnosis or more stringent coding. We identified characteristics associated with pneumonia after MCS which could help identify at-risk patients in order to reduce pneumonia after MCS, as it greatly increases the odds of mortality.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".