Patient Perspectives on Key Symptoms and Preferences for Follow-up After Upper Gastro-intestinal Cancer Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: Long-lasting symptoms and reductions in quality of life are common after oesophago-gastric surgery. Post-operative follow-up has traditionally focussed on tumour recurrence and survival, but there is a growing need to also identify and treat functional sequelae to improve patients’ recovery. Methods: An electronic survey was circulated via a British national charity for patients undergoing oesophago-gastric surgery and their families. Patients were asked about post-operative symptoms they deemed important to their quality of life, as well as satisfaction and preferences for post-operative follow-up. Differences between satisfied and dissatisfied patients with reference to follow-up were assessed. Results: Among 362 respondents with a median follow-up of 58 months since surgery (range 3-412), 36 different symptoms were reported as being important to recovery and quality of life after surgery, with a median 13 symptoms per patient. Most (84%) respondents indicated satisfaction with follow-up. Unsatisfied patients were more likely to have received shorter follow-up than 5 years (27% among unsatisfied patient vs. 60% among satisfied patients, p<0.001) and were less likely to have seen a dietitian as part of routine follow-up (37% vs. 58%, p=0.005). Conclusion: This patient survey highlights preferences regarding follow-up after oesophago-gastrectomy. Longer follow-up and dietician involvement improved patient satisfaction. Patients reported being concerned by a large number of gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal symptoms, highlighting the need for multidisciplinary input and a consensus on how to manage the poly-symptomatic patient.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".