Postoperative complications and symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with gastric and esophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Gastric and oesophageal cancers are common. They are also expected to increase in incidence in the next few years and are characterized by poor prognosis. Surprisingly, whereas the incidence of severe anxiety and depression is high in patients with gastric and oesophageal cancers, the influence of symptoms of depression and anxiety on postoperative complications has barely been explored. METHODS: In a retrospective study based on a prospectively collected database, 629 cancer patients were enrolled. Symptoms of depression and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores) and sociodemographic and medical information were collected immediately after diagnosis and before any treatment. The surgical approach (i.e. gastrectomy or oesophagectomy) and postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were collected after surgery. RESULTS: After controlling for known medical predictors (i.e. surgical strategy, alcohol and tobacco consumption, American Society of Anaesthesiologists classification physical status score) of postoperative complications, no effect of symptoms of depression or anxiety was detected. DISCUSSION: The observed results are surprising given the literature. However, several potential arguments can be put forwards regarding methods and measures, controlling variables, and conceptual distinctions. Despite the absence of significant results, this topic should be more deeply investigated by applying methodological and conceptual adjustments.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".