Enhanced recovery after surgery after radical gastrectomy: Improved compliance over time is associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Changing adherence over time to enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols following radical gastrectomy and the impact this has on length of stay (LoS) is not well described. This study aimed to explore the changes in adherence to core ERAS elements over time and the relationship between compliance and LoS. METHODS: A retrospective, single center cohort study was performed between 01/2016-12/2021. An ad hoc analysis revealed the point at which a significant difference in the number of patients being discharge on postoperative day (PoD) 3 was noted allowing allocation of patients to Group A (01/2016-12/2019) or B (01/2020-12/2021). Compliance with core ERAS elements was compared and the relationship between compliance and discharge by (PoD) 3 assessed. Variables significant on univariate analysis were assessed using binary multivariate regression. RESULTS: Of the 268 patients identified, 187 met the inclusion criteria (Group A 112 and Group B 75). More patients in Group B mobilized on PoD 1 (60.0 vs. 31.3%, p = <0.001), tolerated postgastrectomy diet by PoD 3 (84.6 vs. 62.5%, p = 0.049), and were discharged by PoD 3 (34.7 vs. 20.5%, p = 0.002). Protocol compliance of >75% was associated with discharge on PoD 3 (area under the curve, 0.726). Active mobilization on PoD 1 (OR 3.5, p = 0.009), compliance ≥75% (OR 3.3, p = 0.036), and preoperative nutritional consult (OR 0.2, p = 0.002) were independently associated with discharge on PoD 3. Discharge on PoD 3 did not increase readmission or representation to hospital. CONCLUSION: Early mobilization, protocol compliance >75%, and preoperative nutritional consult were associated with discharge on PoD 3 after radical gastrectomy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".