MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393114585 · doi:10.1080/01443615.2024.2330697

Impact of trainees involvement on surgical outcomes of abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy

2024· article· en· W4393114585 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
O. Fajardo, Ekaterina Grebenyuk, Katherine F. Chaves, Zhiguo Zhao, Tan Ding, Howard L. Curlin, Lara Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUterine Myomas and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeneral surgeryUterine myomectomyLaparoscopyMyomaInternal medicineUterus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background To determine the association of trainees involvement with surgical outcomes of abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy including operative time, rate of transfusion, and complications.Methods A retrospective cohort study of 1145 patients who underwent an abdominal or laparoscopic myomectomy from 2008–2012 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (Canadian Task Force Classification II-2).Results Overall, 64% of myomectomies involved trainees. Trainees involvement was associated with a longer operative time for abdominal myomectomies (mean difference 20.17 minutes, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [11.37,28.97], p < 0.01) overall and when stratified by fibroid burden. For laparoscopic myomectomy, there was no difference in operative time between trainees vs no trainees involvement (mean difference 4.64 minutes, 95% CI [−18.07,27.35], p = 0.67). There was a higher rate of transfusion with trainees involvement for abdominal myomectomies (10% vs 2%, p < 0.01; Odds Ratio (OR) 5.62, 95% CI [2.53,12.51], p < 0.01). Trainees involvement was not found to be associated with rate of transfusion for laparoscopic myomectomy (4% vs 5%, p = 0.86; OR 0.82, 95% CI [0.16,4.14], p = 0.81). For abdominal myomectomy, there was a higher rate of overall complications (15% vs 5%, p < 0.01; OR 2.96, 95% CI [1.77,4.93], p < 0.01) and minor complications (14% vs 4%, p < 0.01; OR 3.71, 95% CI [2.09,6.57], p < 0.01) with no difference in major complications (3% vs 2%, p = 0.23). For laparoscopic myomectomy, there was no difference in overall (6% vs 10% p = 0.41; OR 0.59, 95% CI [0.18,2.01], p = 0.40), major (2% vs 0%, p = 0.38), or minor (5% vs 10%, p = 0.32; OR 0.52, 95% CI [0.15,1.79], p = 0.30) complications.Conclusion Trainees involvement was associated with increased operative time, rate of transfusion, and complications for abdominal myomectomy, however, did not impact surgical outcomes for laparoscopic myomectomy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and GynaecologySame topicUterine Myomas and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207