Preoperative Risk Factors in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic cancer is gastrointestinal cancer with a poor prognosis. Although surgical techniques and chemotherapy have improved treatment outcomes, the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is less than 10%. In addition, resection of pancreatic cancer is highly invasive and is associated with high rates of postoperative complications and hospital mortality. The Japanese Pancreatic Association states that preoperative body composition assessment may predict postoperative complications. However, although impaired physical function is also a risk factor, few studies have examined it in combination with body composition. We examined preoperative nutritional status and physical function as risk factors for postoperative complications in pancreatic cancer patients. Methods: Fifty-nine patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent surgical treatment and were discharged alive from January 1, 2018, to March 31, 2021, at the Japanese Red Cross Medical Center. This retrospective study was conducted using electronic medical records and a database of departments. Body composition and physical function were evaluated before and after surgery, and the risk factors between patients with and without complications were compared. Results: Fifty-nine patients were analyzed: 14 and 45 patients in the uncomplicated and complicated groups, respectively. The major complications were pancreatic fistulas (33%) and infections (22%). There were significant differences in: age, 74.0 (44 - 88) (P = 0.02); walking speed, 0.93 m/s (0.3 - 2.2) (P = 0.01); and fat mass, 16.50 kg (4.7 - 46.2) (P = 0.02), in the patients with complications. On Multivariable logistic regression analysis, age (odds ratio: 2.28; confidence interval (CI): 1.3400 - 569.00; P = 0.03), preoperative fat mass (odds ratio: 2.28; CI: 1.4900 - 168.00; P = 0.02), and walking speed (odds ratio: 0.119; CI: 0.0134 - 1.07; P = 0.05) were identified as risk factors. Walking speed (odds ratio: 0.119; CI: 0.0134 - 1.07; P = 0.05) was the risk factor that was extracted. Conclusions: Older age, more preoperative fat mass, and decreased walking speed were possible risk factors for postoperative complications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".