MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2692463275 · doi:10.1002/hed.24599

Efficacy of a high‐observation protocol in major head and neck cancer surgery: A prospective study

2017· article· en· W2692463275 on OpenAlexaff
Brittany Barber, Jeffrey Harris, Cameron Shillington, Shannon Rychlik, Joseph C. Dort, Michael Meier, Angela Estey, Adam Elwi, Patty Wickson, Michael S. Buss, David Zygun, Kal Ansari, Vincent L. Biron, Daniel A. O’Connell, Hadi Seikaly

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesAlberta HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHead and neck cancerLimitingIntensive care unitMechanical ventilationSedationProspective cohort studyCohortHead and neckWeaningCohort studyEmergency medicineSurgeryAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicineRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207