Canadian Surgery Forum1. (<i>CJS</i>Editors' Choice Award) Weight loss and obesity-related outcomes of gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding in patients enrolled in a population-based bariatric program: prospective cohort study2. Early outcomes of a small, rural bariatric surgery program3. Is early discharge of patients post-laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass safe?4. Defining the learning curve: early experience of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass from a bariatric centre of excellence5. Bariatric surgery in patients with renal disease: Is it safe and is there an optimal approach?6. A comparison of weight loss and follow-up interventions required for sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass at a single centre: Is there an optimal procedure for Canada?7. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band complication and revision rates in a publicly funded obesity program8. The Covidien TriStaple system versus the duet tissue buttress in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a comparative study9. Three-year outcomes for bariatric surgery in a regionalized surgical care system: the Ontario experience10. The epidemiology of readmission after bariatric surgery in Ontario11. Can recent health service use predict postoperative complications in seniors undergoing colon cancer surgery?12. Appropriateness of transfusions for colorectal surgery (ATRACS): a multi-institutional assessment of current red blood cell transfusion practices13. Catheter fecal management systems can cause life-threatening rectal bleeding: a systematic review14. Tumour budding predicts recurrence after curative resection for T2N0 colorectal cancer15. Different scopes for different folks? A comparison of patient populations and adenoma detection rates for out-patient centre and hospital-based colonoscopies16. Normalization of carcinoembryonic antigen levels postneoadjuvant therapy is a strong predictor of pathologic complete response in rectal carcinoma17. Is laparoscopic resection in select T4 colorectal lesions comparable to open resection for achieving adequate margins?18. Is early discharge following elective oncologic colon resections in select patients safe? Analysis of short-term outcomes19. Rate of positive circumferential radial margins in rectal cancer is dependent on pathologist and surgeon performance and on the definition of a positive CRM: data from Local Health Integration Network 420. Laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection in the obese: a meta-analysis21. Toward standardizing the rectal cancer surgery consent process: the evaluation of the rectal cancer decision aid22. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal villous tumours: Can we rely solely on preoperative biopsies and the surgeon’s experience?23. The 2-question questionnaire: an initial step in reducing surgical site infections in colorectal surgery using a comprehensive unit-based safety program24. Measuring patient satisfaction within an enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery program25. Rectal exam: knowledge and perception of family medicine residents in the province of Québec26. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for malignant polyps found at endoscopy27. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for unanticipated malignancies — this unexpected finding does not affect final outcomes28. Transabdominal versus transanal excision of T1 rectal cancer29. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for giant polyps — the Manitoba experience30. Time to recurrence as a marker for tumour aggressiveness in colorectal cancer31. Surgical site infections following colorectal surgery for inflammatory bowel disease and diverticulitis32. Sarcopenia is not predictive of anastomotic leak or length of stay following surgery for colorectal cancer33. Oncologic outcomes and undertreatment issues associated with a selective approach to neoadjuvant radiation therapy in patients with cT3N0 rectal cancer: early results from a retrospective cohort34. Surgical outcomes and cost advantages of transanal minimally invasive surgery35. (<i>CJS</i>Editors' Choice Award) To suture or not: a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial of open versus closed management of full thickness transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) rectal lesion resections36. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: experience of the first 388 procedures at a Canadian colorectal surgery centre37. Combined endoscopic and fluoroscopic approach to colonic stenting: Clinical results from a single centre38. Ten-year experience with self-expanding metal stents as a bridge-to-surgery with curative intent in the treatment of colorectal adenocarcinoma presenting with acute left-sided colonic obstruction39. The effect of an acute care surgery service on the management of appendicitis40. Correlation of CT hypoperfusion complex and clinical hypotension in adult blunt trauma patients41. Endoscopic versus open component separation: systematic review and meta-analysis42. Improving perioperative management of anemia and use of red blood cell transfusions for ga
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
# 1. ( CJS Editors' Choice Award) Weight loss and obesity-related outcomes of gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding in patients enrolled in a population-based bariatric program: prospective cohort study {#article-title-2} Bariatric care is increasingly being delivered in Canada
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,258 | 0,087 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».