MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401340524 · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000006471

Milestones in Surgical Complication Reporting

2024· article· en· W4401340524 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Sutures and Adhesives
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterBharath Institute of Higher Education and ResearchUniversité de LyonAssistance publique-Hôpitaux de ParisHumanitas UniversityYonsei University College of MedicineUniversiteit HasseltUniversitätsspital ZürichUniversitätsklinikum KölnHokkaido UniversityMedizinischen Hochschule HannoverHospices Civils de LyonWarszawski Uniwersytet MedycznyUniwersytet WarszawskiCleveland ClinicRoyal College of Surgeons in IrelandUniversity of TorontoSorbonne UniversitéYonsei UniversityKing Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research CentreOhio State UniversityUniversité de LilleUniversity of Cincinnati
KeywordsMedicineGrading (engineering)ComplicationPsychological interventionReferralMEDLINESurgeryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To provide improved guidance for the consistent application of the Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) in challenging clinical scenarios. BACKGROUND: Standardized outcome reporting is key for the proper assessment of surgical procedures. A recent consensus conference recommended the CDC and the CCI ® for assessing postoperative morbidity. Several challenging scenarios for grading complications still require evidence-based guidance, and the use of the 2 metrics in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remains unexplored. METHODS: We assessed the use of the CDC and CCI ® as an outcome measure in a systematic literature search. In addition, we asked 163 international surgeons to critically evaluate and independently grade complications in 20 complex clinical scenarios. Finally, a Core Group of 5 experts used this information to develop consistent recommendations. RESULTS: Until July 2023, 1327 RCTs selected the CDC and/or CCI ® to assess morbidity. Annual use was steadily increasing with now over 200 new RCTs per year. However, only a third (n = 335) of published RCTs provided the complete range of CDC grades, including all subgrades. Eighty-nine out of 163 surgeons (response rate: 55%) completed the questionnaire that served as a basis for the recommendations: repetitive interventions that are required to treat one complication, complications followed by further complications, complications occurring before referral, and expected and unrelated complications to the original procedure should all be counted separately and included in the CCI ® . Invasive blank diagnostic interventions should not be considered a complication. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing use of the CDC and CCI ® in RCTs highlights the importance of their standardized application. The current consensus on various difficult scenarios may offer novel guidance for the consistent use of the CDC and CCI ® , aiming to improve complication reporting and better quality control, ultimately benefiting all health care stakeholders and, first and foremost, all 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.406
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.033 · 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