Surgeon-level versus hospital-level quality variance in kidney cancer surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether variance in kidney cancer surgery quality indicators (QIs) is most impacted by surgeon-level or hospital-level factors in order to inform quality improvement initiatives. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ICES and Veterans Affairs (VA) databases were queried for patients undergoing surgery for localized kidney cancer. Kidney cancer surgery QIs were defined within each cohort. Quality of care was benchmarked at a surgeon- vs. hospital-level to identify statistical outliers, using available clinicopathological data to adjust for differences in case-mix. Variance between surgeons and hospitals was calculated for each QI using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The QI with the greatest amount of variance explained by hospital and surgeon-level factors was proportion of cases performed with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The majority of this variance was due to surgeon-level factors for both the VA and ICES cohorts. The proportion of cases performed using an MIS approach was also the QI with the greatest number of outlier hospitals and surgeons compared to the average performance. The proportion of partial nephrectomies performed for patients at risk of chronic kidney disease was the QI with the greatest amount of variance due to hospital-level factors for the ICES cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of localized kidney cancer cases performed using an MIS approach is the QI requiring the greatest attention. Quality improvement initiatives should focus on surgeon-level factors to increase the number of MIS cases being performed for patients with localized renal masses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".