MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991274401 · doi:10.1097/aln.0b013e31819f7aea

Postoperative Urinary Retention

2009· review· en· W1991274401 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsMontreal General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrinary retentionUrinary systemPerioperativeIncidence (geometry)AnesthesiaUrinary catheterizationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urinary retention is common after anesthesia and surgery, reported incidence of between 5% and 70%. Comorbidities, type of surgery, and type of anesthesia influence the development of postoperative urinary retention (POUR). The authors review the overall incidence and mechanisms of POUR associated with surgery, anesthesia and analgesia. Ultrasound has been shown to provide an accurate assessment of urinary bladder volume and a guide to the management of POUR. Recommendations for urinary catheterization in the perioperative setting vary widely, influenced by many factors, including surgical factors, type of anesthesia, comorbidities, local policies, and personal preferences. Inappropriate management of POUR may be responsible for bladder overdistension, urinary tract infection, and catheter-related complications. An evidence-based approach to prevention and management of POUR during the perioperative period is proposed.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.285 · 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