Efficacy of a high‐observation protocol in major head and neck cancer surgery: A prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to optimize an existing clinical care pathway (CCP) for head and neck cancer with a high-observation protocol (HOP) and to determine the effect on length of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of stay in hospital (LOS). METHODS: The HOP mandated initiation of spontaneous breathing trials before the conclusion of the surgery, weaning of sedation, and limiting mechanical ventilation. All patients with head and neck cancer undergoing primary surgery on the HOP were compared to a historical cohort regarding length of ICU admission, ICU readmissions, and LOS. RESULTS: Ninety-six and 52 patients were observed in "historical" and "HOP" cohorts. The length of ICU admission (1.9 vs 1.2 days; p = .021), LOS (20.3 vs 14.1 days; p = .020), and ICU readmissions (10.4% vs 1.9%; p = .013) were significantly decreased in the "HOP" cohort. CONCLUSION: Rapid weaning of sedation and limiting mechanical ventilation may contribute to a shorter length of ICU admission and LOS, as well as decreased ICU readmissions. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 39: 1689-1695, 2016.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".