MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neoplasm or Malignancy Involving the Appendix Is Seven Times More Likely for Elective vs Emergency Appendectomies in Cases without a Preoperative Neoplasm Diagnosis: A Review of >52,000 ACS NSQIP Cases

2023· review· en· W4366141371 on OpenAlexaff
Christina Schweitzer, Sam Michael Wiseman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalignancyNeoplasmGeneral surgeryAppendixRadiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Elective appendectomy is performed for treatment of preoperatively diagnosed or suspected neoplasms, and after missed appendicitis initially managed non-operatively. This study aimed to investigate differences in neoplasm rates between elective and emergency appendectomies. Methods: The ACS NSQIP Appendectomy database was analyzed from 2016-2019. Cases were divided into elective and emergent. Primary outcome was rate of final pathologic diagnosis of tumor or malignancy involving the appendix. Cases were excluded if the preoperative diagnosis included any neoplasm. Cases with conflicting indicators for elective and emergency were excluded from subgroup analysis. Results: There were 52,559 appendectomies, of which 828 cases (1.6%) with preoperative diagnosis of neoplasm were excluded, leaving 51,731 appendectomies in the study population. There were 4,475 (8.7%) elective and 31,828 (61.5%) emergent appendectomies. The incidence of final pathologic diagnosis of tumour or malignancy involving the appendix was 0.9% (463 cases) for all appendectomies, 0.6% (177 cases) for emergencies, and 3.7% (166 cases) for elective appendectomies. This represents a 667.0% relative risk and 3.2% absolute risk increase for elective compared withemergency appendectomies, with an odds ratio of 6.88 (95% confidence interval 5.6-8.5). Chi-square test with 95% confidence level was statistically significant (p<0.001) for differences between all 3 groups. Conclusion: Neoplasm or malignancy involving the appendix is seven times more likely for elective than emergency appendectomies. A higher index of suspicion for cancer should be maintained for patients undergoing elective appendectomy. Interval appendectomy or colonoscopy should be selectively considered in patients with missed appendicitis initially managed non-operatively.

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)0.004
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.368
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
GenreReview

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of SurgeonsSame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207