MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Predictors of complication after groin dissection: A contemporary experience.

2022· article· en· W4281663710 on OpenAlexaff
Ghader Jamjoum, Thea Araji, Diana Nguyen, Ari N. Meguerditchian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgerySeromaLymphedemaComplicationDissection (medical)LymphadenectomyWound dehiscenceSarcomaRetrospective cohort studyGroinMelanomaCancerInternal medicineBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e21531 Background: Inguinal lymphadenectomy (ILND) has historically been associated with significant morbidity. The advent of sentinel node biopsy and selective dissection protocols have significantly decreased the frequency with which ILND is performed, reserving it for complex, recurrent disease. The study objective is to obtain contemporary morbidity rates for this complex procedure and to identify potentially preventable risk factors. Methods: Retrospective review of medical charts for all superficial, deep, and combination groin dissections performed for melanoma, sarcoma, and other rare cancers at a single, high-volume academic center between 01/2007 and 12/2020. Data points collected: patient, disease, surgery characteristics, and cancer outcomes. Outcome of interest: any complication within 30 days of surgery. Complications: wound infection, wound necrosis/disruption, seroma, drainage procedure, hematoma, lymphedema, and other. Multivariate logistic regression performed using SAS Enterprise 9.4. Results: : 139 cases were identified; type of dissection was 89, 12, and 38 for superficial, deep, and combined respectively. Melanoma accounted for 84.9% of cases, sarcoma for 8.6%. 56.1% of patients had an adverse postoperative event within 30 days. The majority of patients did not have a history of smoking, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypothyroidism, or radiation therapy. 61.2% were recurrent cancer cases with 56.8%, 19.4%, and 23.7% being clinically evident, radiological-only, and sentinel node positive disease respectively. Type and frequency of complications is reported in Table. Increasing age (OR: 1.04, 95CI: 1.01-1.07, P < 0.01) and number of positive lymph nodes harvested (OR: 1.22, 95CI: 1.00-1.50, P = 0.05) were associated with more complications. Deep dissection showed lower likelihood of complications than those with superficial (OR: 0.15, 95CI: 0.03-0.84, P < 0.05). Conclusions: A number of risk factors for complications were identified opening up opportunities for preventative intervention such as prehabilitation, use of frailty score, and neo-adjuvant therapy. Deep vein thrombosis, abscess, general deterioration, neuropathic pain, numbness. Frequency by occurrence, not patient. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→