MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1927964710 · doi:10.1007/s12630-010-9407-0

Perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain control: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2010· review· en· W1927964710 on OpenAlexafffund
Louise Vigneault, Alexis F. Turgeon, Dany Côté, François Lauzier, Ryan Zarychanski, Lynne Moore, Lauralyn McIntyre, Pierre Nicole, Dean Fergusson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of OttawaUniversité LavalHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaNauseaVomitingRandomized controlled trialLidocainePlaceboPostoperative nausea and vomitingAdverse effectAnalgesicPerioperativeMeta-analysisIleusConfidence intervalSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.023
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations383
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésieSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207