Effectiveness and Safety of Cytoreduction Surgery in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Initial Experience at a University General Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the initial efficiency \nand security of maximal effort cytoreductive surgery in stages \nIII and IV of ovarian cancer at a university hospital. \nMethods: Thirty-four patients with stage III and IV ovarian carcinoma \nunderwent surgery between January 2013 and June 2014 in \nthe University General Hospital of Castellon (Spain). Patients with \nprimary and relapse ovarian cancer were included. The extent of disease, \ntype of surgical technique, amount of tumor prior to surgery and \namount of residual disease after surgery were recorded. To quantify \nthe efficiency and the security of the procedure, the complete cytoreduction \nand the morbidity and the mortality rates were described. \nResults: Of the patients 26.4% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. \nComplete cytoreductive surgery, without evident residual tumor at the \nend of the procedure, was obtained in 79% of patients and optimal cytoreductive \nsurgery (CC0-CC1) in 91%. Surgical complications were \nfound in 56% of patients and two deaths (6%) occurred attributable to \nsurgery. The disease free interval was 15 months. \nConclusions: This study confirms that with experienced multidisciplinary \nteams and in tertiary referral hospitals, 79% of complete \ncytoreduction surgery in advanced ovarian cancer can be achieved \nbut they must be prepared to deal with a high rate of complications
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".