Enhanced recovery after pulmonary surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of surgical recovery encompasses the entire perioperative phase of the patient, beginning with the preoperative baseline and culminating in the long-term rehabilitation of the patient in the post-operative phase. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) aim to encompass all phase of the patient trajectory, including the preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative management of surgical patients. While significant literature exists on standardizing and optimizing the perioperative phase, standardizing the pre and post-operative phases remains a topic of debate. Furthermore, with regards to pulmonary surgery, the available data on enhanced recovery remains limited, with no consensus on which components to include within the ERP. The difficulty in identifying specific factors to include within a pathway is in part due to the lack of representative metrics of recovery. Secondly, the strength of ERPs usually lies in the agglomeration of multiple components rather than the individual components themselves. This review provides a brief review on current developments in ERPs in pulmonary surgery, emphasizing novel components in the pre and post-operative care of patients. Furthermore, we discuss the limitations of current metrics used to study recovery, and what steps can be taken to direct future studies that aim to enhance patient recovery after pulmonary surgery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".