MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885187504 · doi:10.1002/hed.25362

Analysis of readmissions after transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma

2018· article· en· W2885187504 on OpenAlexaff
Harman S. Parhar, Elizabeth B. Gausden, Jayendrakumar S. Patel, Eitan Prisman, Donald W. Anderson, J. Scott Durham, Barret Rush

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultivariate analysisAspiration pneumoniaPneumoniaTransoral robotic surgerySurgeryBasal cellRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As transoral robotic surgery (TORS) is being increasingly used to treat patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), there is an interest in determining contributors to readmission. METHODS: We conducted this retrospective multivariate analysis modeling 30-day readmission using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2012-2014). RESULTS: Of 950 patients, 117 (12.3%) were readmitted. Hemorrhage and diet/aspiration accounted for 32.5% and 19.7% of readmissions, respectively. Of those readmitted, 23.1% required operative bleeding control, 11.1% required transfusion, 1.7% required tracheostomy, and 18.8% required gastrostomies. Those readmitted were older (mean 63.2 years, SD 9.5 vs 60.9 mean years, SD 10.3) and had longer hospitalizations (mean 5.7 days, SD 6.8 vs mean 4.3 days, SD 4.1) and higher rates of aspiration/pneumonia (9.4% vs 2.4%, P < .01) on index admission. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that aspiration/pneumonia on index admission was independently associated with readmission (OR 3.128, 95% CI 1.178-8.302). CONCLUSIONS: Of the patients 12.3% were readmitted within 30 days with hemorrhage and diet complications as significant contributors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207