Role of surgical setting and patients-related factors in predicting the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the role of surgical setting (urgent vs. elective) and approach (open vs. laparoscopic) in affecting postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) prevalence in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After local Ethical Committee approval, 409 patients who had undergone abdominal surgery between January and December 2014 were included in the final analysis. PPCs were defined as the development of one of the following new findings: respiratory failure, pulmonary infection, aspiration pneumonia, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, atelectasis on chest X-ray, bronchospasm or un-planned urgent re-intubation. RESULTS: PPCs prevalence was greater in urgent (33%) vs. elective setting (7%) (χ2 with Yates correction: 44; p=0.0001) and in open (6%) vs. laparoscopic approach (1.9%) (χ2 with Yates correction: 12; p=0.0006). PPCs occurrence was positively correlated with in-hospital mortality (Biserial Correlation r=0.37; p=0.0001). Logistic regression showed that urgent setting (p=0.000), Ariscat (Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia) score (p=0.004), and age (p=0.01) were predictors of PPCs. A cut-off of 23 for Ariscat score was also identified as determining factor for PPCs occurrence with 94% sensitivity and 29% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing abdominal surgery in an urgent setting were exposed to a higher risk of PPCs compared to patients scheduled for elective procedures. Ariscat score fitted with PPCs prevalence and older patients were exposed to a higher risk of PPCs. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".