Laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery in gynecologic oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced laparoscopic procedures are increasingly being used as an alternative to laparotomy in gynecologic oncological surgery. The benefits of advanced laparoscopic procedures compared with laparotomy are clear, including decreased pain, decreased surgical site infection rate, decreased length of stay, quicker return to activity and cosmesis. Recently, the da Vinci robotic system (Intuitive Surgical Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA) has been introduced into minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. The robotic surgical system is an innovative technology that addresses the many of the current limitations of conventional laparoscopy. However, laparoscopic gynecologic oncological surgery is associated with unique challenges and complications compared with the open gynecologic oncological surgery. Principally, this new technique has to address two questions: is the laparoscopic approach a safe procedure and are the oncological results equal to standard surgery? We discuss in this chapter the laparoscopic cytoreductive surgery in gynecologic oncology (uterine and ovarian tumors) and the recent experience and feasibility of integrating robot-assisted technology into minimally invasive gynecologic oncological surgery.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".