MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200285556 · doi:10.1089/gyn.2021.0088

Outcomes of Concurrent Prophylactic Mastectomy and Oophorectomy, Compared to Mastectomy and Hysterectomy, in Hereditary Breast and Gynecologic Cancer: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database Analysis

2021· article· en· W4200285556 on OpenAlexaff
Ai-Lien Le, Yan Liao, Innie Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gynecologic Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMastectomyOophorectomyHysterectomyBreast cancerSurgeryProphylactic MastectomyObstetricsCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The aim of this research was to assess outcomes of concurrent prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy, compared to prophylactic mastectomy and hysterectomy, in patients with hereditary breast and gynecologic cancers. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study of perioperative outcomes used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Of 4673 women undergoing prophylactic mastectomy in the dataset, 82 (1.75%) had concurrent mastectomy and oophorectomy, while 46 (0.98%) had concurrent mastectomy and hysterectomy. Concurrent mastectomy and oophorectomy was compared with concurrent mastectomy and hysterectomy, for outcomes of prophylactic procedures. Results: There were 82 cases of concurrent mastectomy and oophorectomy and 46 cases of concurrent mastectomy and hysterectomy. No significant differences in age (mean ± standard deviation: 46.37 ± 9.00 versus 44.00 ± 8.66 years), normal body mass index (45.12% versus 45.65%), nonsmoking status (82.93% versus. 89.13%), diabetes (3.66% versus 0.00%), classified American Society of Anesthesiologists I (17.07% versus 26.09%), and preoperative hematocrit (38.39 ± 3.51 versus 37.05 ± 6.69) were found. Concurrent mastectomy and hysterectomy were more likely to be inpatient surgeries (86.96% versus. 69.51%; p < 0.05), compared to concurrent mastectomy and oophorectomy. There were no significant differences in rates of surgical-site infections, sepsis, wound disruptions, pelvic visceral injury, intraoperative and postoperative transfusions, and reoperations. Conclusions: Surgical outcomes are similar when comparing concurrent mastectomy and hysterectomy to mastectomy and oophorectomy. The NSQIP data suggest either strategy does not increase surgical and medical complications perioperatively. (J GYNECOL SURG 38:148)

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gynecologic SurgerySame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207