Effect of Daytime Versus Night-time on Outcome in Patients Undergoing Emergent Neurosurgical Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Timing of neurosurgical procedures is controversial. Challenges identified with night-time surgeries include physician fatigue and sleep deprivation, and fewer staff and resources compared with daytime surgery. These might contribute to medical errors and complications, and, hence, worse patient outcomes. METHODS: This single center retrospective study of 304 patients who underwent emergent neurosurgical procedures between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2016 included 2 groups based on the timing of surgery: daytime (7:00 AM to 6:59 PM) and night-time (7:00 PM to 6:59 AM) surgery groups. Patient demographics, diagnosis, surgical characteristics, complications, and neurological outcome were obtained from the medical records. RESULTS: There was no difference in patient demographics, intraoperative complications, and length of surgery between the 2 groups. Although there was no statistically significant difference in neurological outcome between the 2 groups at hospital discharge and 1 month postdischarge, there was a higher proportion of patients in the night-time surgical group with unfavorable neurological outcome (Glasgow Outcome Score 1 to 3) at both these times. There were differences in hospital length of stay, location of postoperative management (postanesthesia care unit or intensive care unit), midline shift, baseline Glasgow Coma Scale score, and acuity of surgery between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analysis showed that age, baseline Glasgow Coma Scale score, surgery acuity status, procedure type, and intraoperative complications influenced neurological outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This study found no difference in the rate of unfavorable neurological outcome in patients undergoing emergent neurosurgical procedures during the daytime and night-time. However, our findings cannot exclude the possibility of an association between timing of surgery and outcome given its limitations, including small sample size and omission of potentially confounding variables. Further well-designed prospective trials are warranted to confirm our findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".