MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improving the quality of surgery for gastric cancer—Are surgeons aware of the relevant quality indicators?

2006· article· en· W2977857941 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lucy Helyer, Ciara O Brien, Natalie G. Coburn, Carol J. Swallow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerLogistic regressionEpidemiologyGeneral surgerySurgeryLymph nodeStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4048 Background: Gastric cancer survival in the West is inferior to that achieved in Asian centers. While differences in tumor biology may play a role, poor quality surgery contributes to understaging. In our evaluation, adequate lymph node (LN) assessment (≥15) was achieved in only one third of patients and independently predicted survival across Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) regions (ASCO 2005, Abstract # 4004). The standard proximal margin of resection is recommended to be ≥5 cm; revision based on intraoperative frozen section is of benefit. We hypothesize that the majority of surgeons performing gastric cancer surgery in a North American setting are unaware of the recommended standards. Methods: Using the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons registry, surgeons who potentially include gastric cancer surgery in their scope of practice were identified. A questionnaire was mailed to 559, 55% responded. 203surgeons reported managing gastric cancer. Results were evaluated by chi-square and logistic regression; p<0.05 was considered significant. Results: 86% of respondents were male; 59% in urban non-academic practice, and 30% in academic. 42% of surgeons operate on 2–5 cases/yr and 18 % on >5. One third of surgeons identified ≤ 4 cm to be the desired proximal margin. Frozen section is used by 52% to evaluate proximal margin status. 20% were unsure of the number of LN needed to accuratly stage, the median number reported by the remainder was 10 (range 0 - 30). 99% refer for adjuvant therapy. This was less likely for patients in poor medical condition, poor nutritional status, or age >70 years. Young patients, those with bulky LN or positive margins were more likely to be referred. Overall, only 16 of 203identified the need for both a ≥5 cm proximal margin and ≥15LN; this was too small a group to analyze for demographic associations. Surgeons who do >5 gastric resections/yr were more likely to report performing a D2 resection (p = 0.008). Conclusions: The majority of surgeons operating on gastric cancer in Ontario did not identify standard quality indicators of gastric cancer surgery. A continuing medical education program should be designed to address the knowledge gap, aiming to improve the quality of surgery and outcome of multidisciplinary management. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207