Perioperative omega-3 fatty acids for liver surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The effect of perioperative omega-3 fatty acids for liver surgery remained controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of omega-3 fatty acids versus placebo in patients undergoing liver surgery. METHODS: We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through May 2020, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of omega-3 fatty acids versus placebo for liver surgery. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for liver surgery, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with substantially reduced incidence of infection (odd ratio [OR]=0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.34-0.91; P = .02), but revealed no remarkable influence on complications (OR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.29-1.24; P = .17), mortality (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.06-9.37; P = .83), liver failure (OR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.10 to 5.00; P = 0.74), biliary leakage (OR=1.24; 95% CI = 0.41 to 3.76; P = .70), bleeding (OR = 1.76; 95% CI = 0.63-4.95; P = .28), or ileus (OR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.07-2.05; P = .27). CONCLUSION: Perioperative omega-3 fatty acids may be beneficial to reduce the incidence of infection after liver surgery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".