MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex-based differences in outcomes following minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A nationwide study.

2025· article· en· W4410809863 on OpenAlexaff
Dhaval Patel, ANERI SANEPARA, N. Patel, Dhruvkumar Gadhiya, Balkiranjit Kaur Dhillon, Anaiya Singh, Saisree Reddy Adla Jala, Hemamalini Sakthivel, Kamleshun Ramphul, Suma Sri Chennapragada

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsBrampton Civic Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerGastrectomyGeneral surgeryInternal medicineOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e16058 Background: Gastric cancer is projected to affect 17,720 men and 12,580 women in 2025, according to the American Cancer Society. Minimally invasive gastrectomy(MIG) has rapidly gained popularity as a safe alternative to open surgery—unfortunately, no gender-based studies comparing postoperative outcomes between males and females after MIG were available. Therefore, we aim to investigate these differences and develop an understanding of the sex-specific outcomes of this procedure, which refers to outcomes unique to each biological sex due to physiological and anatomical differences. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, we performed a retrospective analysis using the National Inpatient Sample(NIS) database, which includes information on many inpatient stays, to identify gastric cancer patients who underwent MIG. We utilized multivariable regression models to analyze in-hospital complications and any sex-based differences. Results: There were 13,315 MIG procedures, including 8,620 (64.7%) in males and 4,695 (35.3%) in females. Both groups were similar in age (mean age 65.33 years for males vs. 64.71 years for females, p = 0.618) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores (mean CCI 4.06 for males vs. 3.84 for females, p = 0.219). Malnutrition was present in 15.2% of females and 17.6% of males (p < 0.01), while 22.8% of females and 24.8% of males had metastasis (p = 0.011). The multivariable regression revealed that males had higher odds of complications, including surgical wound disruption (aOR 1.843, 95% CI 1.316-2.580, p < 0.01), sepsis (aOR 1.557, 95% CI 1.280-1.894, p < 0.01), pneumothorax (aOR 1.580, 95% CI 1.263-1.977, p < 0.01), and acute kidney injury (AKI) (aOR 1.517, 95% CI 1.305-1.763, p < 0.01). Additionally, males had a higher risk of bleeding (aOR 1.328, 95% CI 1.031-1.711, p < 0.01) but no significant difference in blood transfusion rates (aOR 0.942, 95% CI 0.818-1.084, p = 0.405). Both sexes had similar mortality odds (aOR 1.021, 95% CI 0.753-1.385, p = 0.894). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for females (mean 8.04 days) compared to males (mean 8.91 days, p < 0.01). Conclusions: In our study, 64.7% of MIG procedures were performed in males. Males had higher odds of several postoperative complications, including surgical wound disruption, sepsis, pneumothorax, bleeding, and AKI, but no significant differences in blood transfusion rates or mortality. These findings underscore the importance of considering sex-based disparities in postoperative outcomes, as they can inform the development of more effective clinical guidelines for both sexes. Additionally, the limitations of the National Inpatient Sample, including a lack of post-discharge data, indicate the need for future research addressing long-term outcomes and follow-up.

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)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.357 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207