MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W194714802

The Sunnybrook experience: review of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in otolaryngology.

2008· article· en· W194714802 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ashlin J. Alexander, Kevin Higgins, William Geerts

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyPulmonary embolismDeep veinIncidence (geometry)ThrombosisSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of venous thromboembolism in otolaryngology patients at a Canadian tertiary care hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all otolaryngology operations at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre between January 1, 1989, and December 31, 2004. All patients who developed a deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a pulmonary embolism (PE), or both as in-patient postoperative complications were identified. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were identified in our study. Ten patients (71.4%) developed a DVT, five patients developed a PE (35.7%), and one patient (7.1%) developed both. The overall incidence of DVT and PE was 0.1% and 0.05%, respectively. The highest incidence occurred in patients undergoing major head and neck surgery. Patients who developed a PE had a statistically significantly longer hospital stay than patients who developed a DVT (p < .05). There were two deaths in the five patients who developed a PE. CONCLUSION: Venous thromboembolism is an infrequent but potentially devastating cause of morbidity and mortality in the otolaryngology patient population.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207