OC-066 TEMPORAL PATTERN FOR REOPERATION OF INGUINAL HERNIA RECURRENCE AFTER A PRIMARY SHOULDICE REPAIR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To identify timing patterns associated with reoperation for recurrence of inguinal hernia in patients undergoing Shouldice repair (RIHaSR) for primary inguinal hernias. Material and methods Patients undergoing a recurrent inguinal hernia repair from 2013–2017 were initially identified. Subgroup analysis of the first recurrence after a Shouldice repair at this institution were selected. Data collection of this subgroup of patients and data analysis were performed. Results From the 138 patients undergoing a re-operation for a first time inguinal hernia recurrence after a Shouldice repair, 125 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 50.8±13.9, BMI 24.6+2.6 and 97% were male. Regarding time to surgery for recurrence, the most common interval was in the first 5 years after surgery (37.6% of patients; mode: 1 year; median: 7 years; mean: 13.7±13.8 years). A bimodal pattern of temporal recurrence was noted according to patient age: patients >50 had a peak of reoperation for recurrence in the first 5 years (68% of reoperations for recurrence) with a decrescendo pattern, meanwhile patients <50 demonstrated a stable incidence of reoperation for recurrence in the initial 25 years of follow-up. Conclusions Patients undergoing surgery for RIHaSR presented a bimodal temporal pattern according to age at the time of primary surgery. Patients older than 50y.o. presenting a peak of RIHaSR in the first 5 years after primary surgery in comparison to younger patients that present a relatively stable frequency of reoperation for recurrence up to a 25-year follow-up.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".