Comparative study of bilateral axillo-breast approach endoscopic and robotic thyroidectomy: propensity score matching analysis of large multi-institutional data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the large multi-institutional data of surgical outcomes of bilateral axillo-breast approach (BABA) robotic (RT) and endoscopic thyroidectomy (ET) and to evaluate the merits of robotic thyroidectomy. METHODS: From 2004 to 2015, 1,029 patients underwent BABA ET, and from 2008 to 2015, 2003 patients underwent BABA RT in 3 large volume centers in Korea. Two groups were retrospectively compared in terms of clinicopathologic characteristics, complications, surgical completeness, and long-term outcomes using propensity score matching analysis. RESULTS: RT 92.7%, P < 0.001). In long-term follow-up of cancer patients, 1.4% experienced recurrence after ET (10 cases), while 0.3% cases experienced recurrence after RT (5 cases) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both ET and RT can be safe and effective methods to treat thyroid diseases. However, the application of robotic system may help to overcome the limitations of the instruments and surgeon's skills.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".