Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the surgical technique and the frequency of different types of antireflux surgery used in Canada after the introduction of laparoscopic antireflux surgery. DESIGN: Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) surgery and population data in fiscal years 1992 through 1996. were accessed through the Canadian Institute of Health Information, provincial health ministries, MED ECHO and Statistics Canada databases. Data were also analysed by province and nationally for type of surgery (e.g., open abdominal, thoracic, thoracoscopic and laparoscopic). RESULTS: National data showed a slight increase in GER surgery in the last 5 years. Laparoscopic surgery increased 2.8 fold in 1993 and 1.6 fold in 1995 over the previous years. Open abdominal cases decreased 1.1 fold from 1992 to 1996. Thoracic cases remained essentially unchanged. Provincial and regional disparities in procedures per 100,000 population exist (Ontario 7.1 versus Nova Scotia 20.7). Areas in which little or no laparoscopic surgery was done had an average increase of 3%, whereas areas in which laparoscopic surgery was done had an average increase of 16% in GER surgery during the course of the study. In provinces west of Quebec (with the exception of Manitoba) more than 50% of GER surgery is laparoscopic; in areas east of Ontario less than 25% of GER surgery is performed laparoscopically. Five provinces (Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland) performed significantly fewer laparoscopic procedures than the national average. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of GER surgery is increasing modestly in Canada and is performed most often by the open abdominal route. Regional disparities in open and laparoscopic techniques are apparent. Laparoscopic surgery for GER is increasing rapidly and accounts for the decrease in open GER 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".