MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000314081

Emergency management of patients with colorectal cancer

2016· other· en· W7000314081 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and soil sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVancouver Coastal Health Research Institute
KeywordsPsychological interventionColorectal cancerPerforationAnesthesiologyDiseaseEmergency surgeryIntervention (counseling)Descriptive statistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: According to the literature, up to 30% patients with colorectal cancers (CRCs) present to the emergency department (ED) with surgical emergencies. The most common surgical presentations of these patients are: intestinal obstruction, perforation and bleeding. Palliative surgical interventions in these patients are believed to carry high risks of morbidity and mortality. Moreover, management options tend to be individualized in most cases, if not all. Methodology: A systematic review of published literature was conducted. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were summarized. Quantitative data regarding study characteristics were analyzed and expressed as descriptive statistics. Primary outcomes of interest were post-operative complications, mortality and 5-year disease free status. Results: 304 articles were collected from searching online data bases. Eight articles were found to match the research question and underwent a full text review. Five more articles were added from searching the grey literature. After final review, 11 articles were selected to be included in the systematic review. Papers were assessed for methodological validity. 81.8% of studies used regression models in their analyses. Mean number of patients included in the papers was 3,567 (min= 145, max= 30,790). 50.2% of all patients were males. Most of the included studies reported mean age of more than 60 years. The mean follow-up period in days was 399.5. Analysis of different variables revealed that, CRC patients who received emergency surgery had more comorbidities (95% CI, OR=1.42 P=0.05), higher American Society of Anesthesiology classes (95% CI, OR=1.33 P=0.08), and more advanced disease (95% CI, OR=1.09 P=0.02) than CRC patients who receive surgical intervention on elective basis. Moreover, resection rate was higher in the elective group (95% CI, OR=0.5 P=0.04). In contrast, stoma creation rate was higher in the emergency group (95% CI, OR=5.08 P=0.003). Furthermore, emergency patients had higher rates of postoperative complications (95% CI, OR=4.6 P=0.007) and mortality (95% CI, OR=5.38 P=0.0001). Conclusion: Patients requiring emergency surgery for CRC often have complex comorbidities and acute instability, and are at very high risk of postoperative complications. These findings highlight an important opportunity for the development of comprehensive systems of emergency surgical care, and, ultimately, improvement of patient outcomes.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0070.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicPlant and soil sciencesFrench-language works237,207