Perioperative Expectations of Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Surgery for Cancer: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of surgical intervention in patients with gastrointestinal cancers, little is known about patients' expectations regarding physical recovery, long-term prognosis, and quality of life following surgery. METHODS: This systematic review followed the PRISMA reporting guidelines. Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) were searched. Studies were included if they reported the perioperative expectations of adult patients undergoing curative-intent GI cancer surgery. Data extracted included aims and study design, participant characteristics, disease and treatment characteristics, and findings related to patient expectations. RESULTS: In total, 22 studies were included for analysis and provided data on 3605 patients. The majority of studies found that patients were uncertain about what to expect from surgery, which contributed to feelings of distress, anxiety, frustration, and isolation. Patients struggled to distinguish between normal postoperative symptoms and signs of potential complications and expressed a desire for more information about anticipated and unanticipated surgical outcomes. Expectations regarding the length of postoperative convalescence ranged from weeks to years, and most patients overestimated the ability of surgery to achieve cure. Only one study evaluated the impact of an intervention on preoperative expectation development. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing surgery for resectable GI malignancies are frequently unprepared for the challenges of postoperative recovery and life after surgery. Many express a desire for more thorough and realistic information about what to expect. There is a clear need for the development and evaluation of supportive interventions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".