Surgical Gloves and Instruments: Potential Vectors of Cancer Cell Seeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer recurrence in surgical wounds occurs by unknown mechanisms. My hypothesis is that tumour cells are harboured on surgical gloves and instruments during the extirpative phase of a cancer resection and can exfoliate into the wound during reconstruction, with potential for growth. A systematic review revealed that the incidence of port-site metastasis in gallbladder cancer is especially high. A survey of practising surgeons found that there is no consensus as to whether specific intraoperative protective strategies are warranted. An analysis of washings from gloves and instruments used intraoperatively during cancer resections identified malignant cells on approximately half of gloves and instruments that had directly handled malignant tissue (debulking of peritoneal malignancy, incisional biopsy of extremity sarcoma). No malignant cells were identified on a glove or instrument used in margin-negative sarcoma resection. These results suggest that specific protective strategies may not be warranted in curative resections.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".