MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1968741208 · doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2014.04.005

Is drain placement necessary in pediatric patients who undergo the Sistrunk procedure?

2014· article· en· W1968741208 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Otolaryngology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Anomalies
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryCystComplicationThyroglossal ductHyoid bone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Thyroglossal duct cysts are usually managed with the Sistrunk procedure, which involves excision of the cervical cyst with the central portion of the hyoid bone, along with its tract. Surgical drains are commonly placed with this procedure, which necessitates postoperative hospital admission. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine if surgical drain placement is necessary in pediatric patients who underwent the Sistrunk procedure. METHODS: The current study describes the outcomes of 30 consecutive children who underwent the Sistrunk procedure without drain placement. Complication rates are compared to an age-matched control group who had drains placed. RESULTS: No major complications, including hematomas were observed in the study group; outpatient surgery was safely observed in 20 patients. No significant difference in complication rates was observed between the study and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Routine drain placement in children who are undergoing the Sistrunk procedure may not be necessary. Subsequently, postoperative admission may be avoided.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Otolaryngology→Same topicHead and Neck Anomalies→French-language works237,207→