O110 Prophylactic appendicectomy and cholecystectomy prior to prolonged expedition in extreme environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Over the past century, there has been a reasonable amount of evidence to support the concept of prophylactic appendicectomy and cholecystectomy prior to commencing prolonged expeditions to extreme environments such as the Antarctic and space. However, the risks and ethics of removing perfectly healthy organs to prevent a possible future complication must be accounted for. We aimed to perform a qualitative review of existing literature on the risks and ethics of prophylactic surgical procedures prior to prolonged expeditions. Methods We conducted a review of PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar databases on the use of prophylactic surgical procedures following ENTREQ guidelines. Results We utilized 23 studies returned in our search to synthesize a body of literature concerning the risks, benefits, and ethics of prophylactic surgical removal of non-essential organs prior to prolonged expeditions. In Antarctic expeditions, the risk of developing acute appendicitis has been projected as high as 43 per 1 million person days. Perioperative complications and risk of death are also high in these prolonged ∼30-year expedition settings. With lack of access to such minimally invasive laparoscopic technologies in extreme environments and unknown exposures, it is anticipated that management would be increasingly challenging with a high risk of complication and death. The risks of surgery must also be considered in individuals with co-morbidities, personal circumstances, and in the context of medical fitness for certification. Conclusion The benefit versus risk analysis is variable. Most literature suggest screening and performance enhancement for explorers undertaking prolonged missions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".