Role of intraoperative processes of care during major upper gastrointestinal oncological resection in postoperative outcomes: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Optimal delivery and organisation of care is critical for surgical outcomes and healthcare systems efficiency. Anaesthesia volumes have been recently associated with improved postoperative recovery outcomes; however, the mechanism is unclear. Understanding the individual processes of care (interventions received by the patient) is important to design effective systems that leverage the volume-outcome association to improve patient care. The primary objective of this scoping review is to systematically map the evidence regarding intraoperative processes of care for upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery. We aim to synthesise the quantity, type, and scope of studies on intraoperative processes of care in adults who undergo major upper gastrointestinal cancer surgeries (oesophagectomy, hepatectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy, and gastrectomy) to better understand the volume-outcome relationship for anaesthesiology care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension framework for scoping reviews. We will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for original research articles published after 2010 examining postoperative outcomes in adult patients undergoing either: oesophagectomy, hepatectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy, or gastrectomy, which report at least one intraoperative processes of care (intervention or framework) applied by anaesthesia or surgery. The data from included studies will be extracted, charted, and summarised both quantitatively and qualitatively through descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this scoping review. Results will be disseminated through publication targeted at relevant stakeholders in anaesthesiology and cancer surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/392UG; https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-392ug-v1.
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 | 0.114 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.009 |
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".