Comparison of Prognosis between Minimally Invasive and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is performed to treat cervical cancer patients; however, a recent study showed that MIS was associated with higher recurrence and death rate compared with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH). In the current study, the prognosis of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent MIS with vaginal closure or ARH was evaluated. One hundred and eighty-two patients underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer with stage of IA2, IB1, and IIA1. MIS was performed by laparoscopy or a robot using the vaginal closure method. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated between the groups. Among the patients, 67 underwent MIS and 115 underwent ARH. The recurrence rate was 4.5% in MIS patients and 3.5% in ARH patients with a median follow-up (interquartile range) of 36 (18–60) and 78 (48–102) months, respectively. DFS and OS were not different between the groups (3y-DFS, 95.3% vs. 96.1%, p = 0.6; 3y-OS, 100% vs. 100%, p = 0.06). In early-stage cervical cancer patients, MIS with vaginal closure did not increase the risk for recurrence or death. Surgical techniques and procedures to avoid spillage of tumor cells could be important for a better prognosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".