Bibliographic record
Abstract
Textbook of Obstetric Anesthesia D. J. Birnbach, S. P. Gatt, S. Datta, eds. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2000. ISBN 0-443-06560-8. 864 pp, $135.00. The editors of this multi-authored book state that “this new textbook endeavors to establish a uniformity of clinical approach to obstetric anesthesia that will be appreciated for its distinctly international approach.” To ensure that international perspective the authors are from 29 different countries. The chapters are well written and provide essential information. Of value to the reader, there are key points at the end of each chapter along with a significant reference and a case intended to focus the reader on the chapter content. For the most part, the cases presented are pertinent, although in a couple of chapters the information required to manage the case is not covered in that chapter. Figures and tables are used judiciously with the exception of two chapters that would have benefited from their addition. Some of the tables are particularly useful, such as the one that lists the latex content of regional anesthesia equipment. Some chapters are outstanding. The chapter on air and amniotic fluid embolism has an excellent description of the pathophysiology of air embolism and should be recommended reading for all residents. Similarly, the chapter on ethical issues and consent should be mandatory for every practitioner of obstetric anesthesia. Ethical principles are described and the author addresses the issue of informed consent in obstetric anesthesia. The chapter on patient satisfaction is unique and provides the framework for determining how the patient’s interests should be considered in evaluating patient care. In keeping with the international perspective, Appendix A poses the question “Regional Anesthesia in the third world: Is it an option?” The author, Dr. Say Wan Lim from Malysia, brings a unique perspective to this question. At just over two pages long, this chapter provides an interesting look at practice in the third world. What are the downsides of this text? In common with other multi-authored texts, it suffers from some inconsistency in writing style and duplication of information. It is also 830 pages long (including appendices and index), which may have been the reason that the pages separated from the backing during this review. This reviewer would be concerned that it may not withstand regular use. There is a 22-page appendix on the Guidelines from the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. Although of interest, one wonders why it was included, as anesthesiologists follow the guidelines of their own societies. As the editors intended, the content and unique perspective on the issues confronting the obstetrical anesthesiologist make this an excellent textbook. It provides current information on our ever-evolving subspecialty and will serve as a useful reference.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.160 | 0.150 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".