Effects of the Enhanced Recovery Program on the Recovery and Stress Response in Patients With Cancer Undergoing Pancreatoduodenectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim the study was the comparison of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus conventional care (CON) protocols in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy with regard to pain intensity, emotional response (optimism/sadness/stress), and stress biomarker levels (adrenocorticotropopic hormone, cortisol). We conducted a prospective two-group randomized controlled study with repeated measures in 85 patients with cancer pancreatoduodenectomy. In the ERAS group (N = 44), the ERAS protocol was followed, compared with the CON group (N = 41). We assessed pain with the numeric rating scale and a behavioral scale (Critical Care Pain Observation Tool), emotional responses (numeric rating scale), and serum adrenocorticotropopic hormone and cortisol levels at three time points: T1, admission day; T2, day of surgery; and T3, discharge day (ERAS) or the fifth day of stay (CON). Data were analyzed by linear mixed modeling to account for repeated measurements. We observed decreased postoperative pain in ERAS patients after adjusting for confounders (p = .002) and a trend for less complications. No significant associations with stress/emotional responses were noted. Only age, but not protocol, appeared to have a significant effect on adrenocorticotropopic hormone levels despite a significant interaction with time toward increased adrenocorticotropopic hormone levels in the ERAS group. In conclusion, despite its fast track nature, ERAS is not associated with increased stress in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy and is associated with decreased pain.
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".