Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols: Time to change practice?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection remainsthe standard treatment for patients with muscle invasive bladdercancer. Despite improvements in surgical technique, anesthesiaand perioperative care, radical cystectomy is still associatedwith greater morbidity and prolonged in-patient stay after surgerythan other urological procedures. Enhanced recovery after surgery(ERAS) protocols are multimodal perioperative care pathwaysdesigned to achieve early recovery after surgical procedures bymaintaining preoperative organ function and reducing the profoundstress response following surgery. The key elements of ERASprotocols include preoperative counselling, optimization of nutrition,standardized analgesic and anesthetic regimens and earlymobilization. Despite the significant body of evidence indicatingthat ERAS protocols lead to improved outcomes, they challengetraditional surgical doctrine, and as a result their implementationhas been slow.The present article discusses particular aspects of ERAS protocolswhich represent fundamental shifts in surgical practice, includingperioperative nutrition, management of postoperative ileus andthe use of mechanical bowel preparation.
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.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
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 it