MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393189000 · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.03.006

Improved outcomes following gastrointestinal surgery among people living with HIV in the HAART-era: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4393189000 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria H. Chen, Keiko M. Patterson, Julio Montaner, Sam M. Wiseman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV-related health complications and treatments
Canadian institutionsProvidence Health CareAIDS VancouverSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)CholecystectomyInternal medicineSepsisAbdominal surgeryMEDLINESurgeryGastroenterologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: gastrointestinal (GI) system surgical outcomes among people living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (PLWH) in the HAART-era. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for primary publications on GI surgery outcomes exclusively in HAART-treated HIV patients. NSQIP-reported complications (NRCs), all-cause complications (ACC) and HIV disease parameters were extracted. RESULTS: 12 studies met study inclusion criteria, examining bowel (4), bariatric (5), cholecystectomy (1), appendectomy (1), and other general abdominal operations (1). The NRC rate was 0%, ≥44.4% and 13.3% in bariatric, bowel and appendix surgeries, respectively. Over half of NRCs were infectious. HAART-treated patients had lower ACC, LOS, and sepsis versus untreated-HIV, and higher ACC, LOS and reoperation rates versus HIV-negative patients. CONCLUSION: HAART use is associated with markedly improved NRC outcomes post GI surgery among PLWH; however, these remained inferior to those documented among HIV uninfected individuals.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of SurgerySame topicHIV-related health complications and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207