Safety and effectiveness of thoracic day surgery in patient with lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The successful implementation of the Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) concept in thoracic surgery has made it possible to complete the surgery in the day surgery unit. However, it is still unclear whether day surgery for lung cancer patients can achieve the same results. Methods A systematic literature search was completed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Web of Science for studies published from 1995 to May 2022. The quality of the articles was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Results We ultimately included 7 retrospective articles that met our criteria for the study. Age, smoking status of patient, comorbidity before the day surgery and pulmonary function tests were better than in inpatient surgery group. Minimally invasive surgical method with segmentectomy was more used in day surgery group than in normal surgery group. The 30-day mortality was also lower in day surgery group and it displayed that early discharged patients had fewer overall complications than the inpatient surgery group. Conclusions Thoracic day surgery has more advantages over inpatient surgery for patient with lung cancer and safe POD1 discharge.
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 | 0.008 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".