Long-term outcomes of laparoscopy vs. open surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The long-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery for geriatric patients with colorectal cancer remains unclear due to decreased functional reserves and increased medical comorbidities. A meta-analysis was performed in the present study to compare the long-term outcome between laparoscopy and laparotomy. Randomized controlled trials and comparative studies regarding laparoscopy vs. open surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients were searched in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library between inception and April 20, 2017. The methodological quality of the cohort studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata v12.0 software. Eight cohort studies were enrolled in the meta-analysis. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a higher 3-year survival rate compared with open surgery [risk ratio (RR), 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61-0.90; P=0.003]. No significant difference was identified between laparoscopy and laparotomy regarding the 5-year survival rate (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11, P=0.424). The results of the meta-analysis indicated that the use of laparoscopic surgery on geriatric patients with colorectal cancer should be increased due to more improved long-term outcomes. All the studies included in the meta-analysis were case-control studies with selection bias and other confounding factors. Thus, larger sample sizes and multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to further validate the use of laparoscopic surgery as the preferred therapeutic option for elderly patients with colorectal cancer.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.071 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".