Were Surgical Outcomes for Acute Appendicitis Impacted by the COVID-19 Pandemic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare systems throughout the world. We examine whether appendectomy outcomes in 2020 were affected by the pandemic. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 30-day appendectomy outcomes using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2019 and 2020. Logistic regression and linear regression analyses were performed to create models of post-operative outcomes. Results There were no associations between year of surgery and death, post-operative blood transfusions, readmissions, sepsis, or length of stay. There was an increase in septic shock in the first quarter (p = 0.033), reoperations in the third quarter (p = 0.027), and rates of complicated appendicitis in the fourth quarter (p = 0.001) of 2020 compared to corresponding quarters of 2019. Total operative time was longer in the first three quarters of 2020 than 2019. Conclusions There were minimal differences in emergent appendectomy outcomes in 2020 compared to 2019. Surgical systems in the US successfully adapted to the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".