Does Intraoperative Blood Loss Affect the Short-Term Outcomes and Prognosis of Gastric Cancer Patients After Gastrectomy? A Meta-Analysis
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
Purpose The purpose of the current meta-analysis was to analyze whether intraoperative blood loss (IBL) influenced the complications and prognosis of gastric cancer patients after gastrectomy. Methods We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases on November 29, 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis uses RevMan 5.3 for data analysis. Results A total of nine retrospective studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 4653 patients. In terms of short-term outcomes, the Larger IBL group has a higher complication rate (OR = 1.94, 95% CI, 1.44 to 2.61, P < 0.0001) and a longer operation time (OR = 77.60, 95% CI, 41.95 to 113.25, P < 0.0001) compared with the smaller IBL group, but the Larger IBL group had higher total retrieved lymph nodes (OR = 3.68, 95% CI, 1.13 to 6.24, P = 0.005). After pooling up all the HRs, the Larger IBL group has worse overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.80, 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.56, P = 0.001) and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR = 1.48, 95% CI, 1.28 to 1.72, P < 0.00001). Conclusion Larger IBL increased operation time and postoperative complications, and decreased OS and DFS of gastric cancer patients. Therefore, surgeons should be cautious about IBL during operation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it