Synoptic Operative Reporting in Cervical Cancer Surgeries: Experience From a Single Oncology Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective In today's era of highly methodological oncological practices in place, we have a huge database to regulate, and it is foreseeable that a humongous load of information is ahead of us that we need to organize and comprehend. With the advancement in surgical equipment and evolving procedures, we need to store the information in a transferrable, understandable, and systematic way to prevent any ebb in the future. The systematic recording of operative data is even more important for patient management, training, and research. Standardized reporting also helps surgical residents have a better understanding of all aspects of the procedure. This study aims to analyze the synoptic operative reporting in cervical cancer patients from December 2009 to February 2020 in a single tertiary care center dedicated to providing oncology services to patients. This study will analyze the understandability, volume, and ease of transference of data during the given time period. Methodology The Alberta Cancer Registry was contacted to obtain data from the synoptic operative reports. Synoptic Operative Reports of all the patients operated on cervical cancer from December 2009 to February 2020. Results The data were obtained for 574 patients. As many as 463 patients were operated on for stage 1 and 2 cervical cancers and 10 patients for advanced and recurrent cervical cancer. A total of 101 patients were operated on for high-grade cervical dysplasia (HSIL). Adenocarcinoma was the most common histology. Laparotomy was performed in 308 patients, whereas others had laparoscopic procedures. Details of the surgery from the beginning of the incision to closure were recorded. The cervical cancer template consisted of 356 questions. There were separate templates for advanced and early-stage cancer. However, even with the meticulously detailed report, an average of only eight minutes was taken by each user to complete the template. Conclusion The computerized synoptic operative report has an upper hand over the dictated documentation report along with the ease of execution without missing essential substance. Its utility as an educational tool is very promising. Therefore, we encourage other facilities, especially cancer centers, to use synoptic operative reports more extensively not only for cervical cancer surgeries but also for other ones.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".