MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984078462 · doi:10.1136/ebm.6.3.96

A 2 factor model helped to rule out early stage necrotising fasciitis

2001· article· en· W1984078462 on OpenAlexaff
Allison McGeer

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStreptococcal Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNecrotising fasciitisMedicineWeb of scienceFasciitisGynecologyInternal medicineGastroenterologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(2000) J Am Coll Surg 191, 227. Wall DB, Klein SR, Black S, et al. . A simple model to help distinguish necrotizing fasciitis from nonnecrotizing soft tissue infection. . Sep; . : . –31 . [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: How accurate is a 2 factor model in differentiating early stage necrotising fasciitis (NF) from other non-necrotising soft tissue infections (NNFs)? The model was derived by using data from a previous case control study, and a retrospective cohort study was used to validate the model. A university medical centre in Torrance, California, USA. Data from 42 patients (mean age 39 y, 81% men, 50% with NF and 50% with NNF) were used for the derivation set. Data from 359 patients (mean age 44 y, 77% men, 9% with NF and 91% with NNF) admitted to hospital between April 1998 and March 1999 with a primary diagnosis of NF or NNF infection at discharge were used for the validation set. More patients with NF had a history of hepatitis (19% … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Bthe%2BAmerican%2BCollege%2Bof%2BSurgeons%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAm%2BColl%2BSurg%26rft.aulast%253DWall%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%2BB.%26rft.volume%253D191%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D227%26rft.epage%253D231%26rft.atitle%253DA%2Bsimple%2Bmodel%2Bto%2Bhelp%2Bdistinguish%2Bnecrotizing%2Bfasciitis%2Bfrom%2Bnonnecrotizing%2Bsoft%2Btissue%2Binfection.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS1072-7515%252800%252900318-5%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10989895%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1072-7515(00)00318-5&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10989895&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F6%2F3%2F96.1.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000089108200001&link_type=ISI

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicStreptococcal Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207