Predictors of return-to-work after thyroid cancer surgery based on random forest model: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thyroid cancer (TC) is the most prevalent malignancy among middle-aged and young adults. Many patients will face the challenge of return-to-work (RTW) after TC surgery. If patients cannot return to work successfully, it may affect their social recovery and quality of life. This study used the random forest algorithm to identify the predictors of RTW after TC surgery. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted, encompassing a sample of 242 patients who underwent TC surgery in Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University from April to December 2023. The participants completed questionnaires including the general information questionnaire, the Return-To-Work Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (RTW-SE), the Cancer Fatigue Scale (CFS), and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). In this study, the predictors of RTW after TC surgery were analyzed by univariate analysis, multiple logistic regression, and random forest model (RFM). RESULTS: The final 229 TC patients were included in this study, of which 183 (79.9%) returned to work, of which 46 (20.1%) failed to return to work. The median time of RTW was 30.00(14.00, 33.75) days after TC surgery. The RFM indicated that RTW-SE was a key predictor related to RTW after TC surgery and other predictors were ranked in order of importance as follows: postoperative time, neck scar (NS), medical insurance, complications, and rehabilitation exercise. CONCLUSIONS: 20.1% (46/229) of patients still failed to return to work after TC surgery. Healthcare professionals ought to emphasize the importance of modifiable factors, improving TC patients' RTW-SE, reducing the formation of NS, minimizing the occurrence of complications, and promoting rehabilitation exercise may help to facilitate RTW after TC surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".