MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899259807 · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000001204

Consequences of Increasing Complexity in Anorectal Surgery Performed at an Academic Center

2018· article· en· W2899259807 on OpenAlexaff
D. Hiller, Sami A. Chadi, Lester Rosen, Steven D. Wexner

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Colon & Rectum · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal surgeryCurrent Procedural TerminologyIntraclass correlationGeneral surgeryGraduate medical educationPerioperativeSpecialtySurgeryAnal canalRectumAbdominal surgeryAccreditationFamily medicinePsychometricsMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anorectal surgery encompasses a wide range of procedures with varying complexity. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Review Committee for Colon and Rectal Surgery recommends minimum case numbers (60) for 1-year specialty trainees in 6 categories of anorectal surgery, with definitions for procedural complexity. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the scope of anorectal procedures and propose a stratification of procedures based on a consensus of levels of difficulty, as well as to identify a predictive charge cutoff suggestive of procedural complexity. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary academic center. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing anorectal procedures between January 2011 and December 2014 identified by Current Procedural Terminology coding were entered into 6 categories. Codes were stratified as routine or complex based on an assessment of perioperative care and technical expertise required. Patients with an abdominal portion to any procedure were excluded. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The study measured distribution of complexity in anorectal surgical procedures and procedural charge associated with differentiating routine from complex procedures. RESULTS: Seven colorectal surgeons performed 2483 anorectal procedures (mean = 620 per year). Mean age was 48 ± 16 years. Forty six (64%) of 71 procedures were classified as routine and 25 (36%) of 71 as complex. Most disease processes had subsets with routine or complex procedures, whereas all of the procedures performed for fecal incontinence or advanced anorectal techniques were considered complex. Fistula procedures and transanal excisions were most heterogeneous, with a high procedural complexity rate (37% and 50%). After a procedural complexity rating, intraclass correlation by 6 surgeons was 0.70, demonstrating good correlation. Receiver operating curve assessments of consensus categorization according to billing codes revealed $553 as the optimal cutoff between routine and complex procedures. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-institution retrospective review. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal residents may benefit from anorectal case stratification, because it serves as a dialogue for those interested in complex anorectal surgery during training. Surgeon categorization of procedures correlates well with a charge-based model of complexity. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A806.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the Colon & RectumSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207