MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988253597 · doi:10.1227/neu.0b013e318270d9a3

Advancing Neurosurgery Through Translational Research

2012· article· en· W1988253597 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Lacey, Garnette R. Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTranslational researchNeurosurgeryMEDLINEMedical physicsSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every year, the number of published research articles increases significantly. However, many potentially useful ideas are lost in this flood of data. Translational research provides a framework through which investigators or laboratories can maximize the likelihood that the product of their research will be adopted in medical practice. There are 2 recognizable models of translation appropriate for the majority of research: investigator driven and industry enabled. Investigator-driven research has more range because it does not have to consider the profit margin of research, but it is a slow process. The industry-enabled model accelerates the translational research process through the power of industry funding but is interested primarily in products with potential for profit. Two cases are examined to illustrate different methods of partnering with industry. IMRIS is a company founded by investigators to distribute intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging technology based on a movable high-field magnet. It took 7 years for IMRIS to make its first sale, but it is now a successful company. With neuroArm, a surgical robot, investigators decided to sell the intellectual property to an established company to ensure successful global commercialization. Translational research advances medicine by creating and distributing effective solutions to contemporary problems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207