Long-term Functional Outcomes Among Older Adults Undergoing Video-assisted Versus Open Surgery for Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the long-term healthcare dependency outcomes of older adults undergoing VATS compared to open lung cancer resection. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the benefits of VATS for lung cancer resection have been reported, there is a knowledge gap related to long-term functional outcomes central to decision-making for older adults. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective comparative cohort study of patients ≥70 years old undergoing lung cancer resection between 2010 and 2017 using linked administrative health databases. VATS was compared to open surgery for lung cancer resection. Outcomes were receipt of homecare and high time-at-home, defined as <14 institution-days within 1 year, in 5 years after surgery. We used time-to-event analyses. Homecare was analyzed as recurrent dichotomous outcome with Andersen-Gill multivariable models, and high time-at-home with Cox multivariable models. RESULTS: Of 4974 patients, 2951 had VATS (59.3%). In the first three months postoperatively, homecare use ranged from 17.5% to 34.4% for VATS and 23.0% to 36.6% for open surgery. VATS was independently associated with lower need for postoperative homecare over 5 years (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.92). 1- and 5-year probability of high "time-at-home" were superior for VATS (74.4% vs 66.7% and 55.6% vs 45.4%, p < 0.001). VATS was independently associated with higher probability of high "time-at-home" (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.89) compared to open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to open surgery, VATS was associated with lower homecare needs and higher probability of high "time-at-home," indicating reduced long-term functional dependence. Those important patient-centered endpoints reflect the overall long-term treatment burden on mortality and morbidity that can inform surgical decision-making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".