MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384665763 · doi:10.3233/thc-230201

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted and video assisted thoracic surgery for early non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4384665763 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Health Care · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerMeta-analysisThoracotomyLymphCardiothoracic surgeryLungTreatment of lung cancerBlood lossSurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Radical resection of lung cancer and chemotherapy are the main methods for the treatment of early lung cancer, but surgical treatment is still the key and preferred method. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: The clinical cohort studies on the comparison of the effects of RATS and VATS in the treatment of NSCLC published in Web of Science, PubMed, The National Library of Medicine (NLM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang database from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2022 were searched. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, such as operation time, intraoperative conversion rate, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, and evaluated the quality of the included literature based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RevMan 5.3 software was used for Meat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 18 articles and 21,802 subjects were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the intraoperative blood loss of RATS was significantly less than that of VAS, and the difference was statistically significant [MD =-38.43 (95% CI: -57.71, -19.15, P< 0.001)]. Compared with VATS, the number of lymph nodes dissected in RATS was significantly higher [MD = 2.61 (95% CI: 0.47, 4.76, P= 0.02)]. The rate of conversion to thoracotomy in RATS was lower, and the difference was statistically significant [OR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.70, P< 0.001)]. There was no significant difference between RATS and VATS in operation time [MD =-9.34 (95% CI: -28.72, 10.04, P= 0.34)], postoperative thoracic drainage time [MD =-0.08 (95% CI: -0.42, 0.26, P= 0.64)], postoperative hospital stay [MD =-0.05 (95% CI: -0.19, 0.08, P= 0.42)], postoperative mortality [OR = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.56, 1.36, P= 0.56)] and postoperative complications [OR = 1.03 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.13, P= 0.57)]. CONCLUSION: Compared with VATS, the number of lymph nodes dissected in RATS was significantly more, and the removal of lesions and lymph nodes was more thorough and accurate. More flexible and precise operation avoids the injury of important blood vessels during operation, effectively reduces the amount of blood loss during operation, shortens the indwelling time of thoracic drainage tube, and is conducive to postoperative rehabilitation of patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it