MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient selection in ambulatory surgery

2005· article· en· W2007883357 on OpenAlexaff
J. Lermitte, Frances Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Anaesthesiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatoryPerioperativePopulationAdverse effectCoronary artery diseaseObesityObstructive sleep apneaDiabetes mellitusIntensive care medicineSurgeryAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To evaluate the evidence regarding decisions made in the perioperative management of patients undergoing ambulatory surgery for the following: the elderly, hyper-reactive airways disease, coronary artery disease, diabetes, obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, the ex-premature infant and the child with an upper respiratory infection. RECENT FINDINGS: Major morbidity and mortality following ambulatory surgery is exceedingly low. Minor adverse cardiac events during the intraoperative period are associated with hypertension and the elderly. Minor adverse respiratory events during the intraoperative period are associated with obesity. Respiratory events during the postoperative period are associated with obesity, smoking and asthma. Prolonged stays following ambulatory surgery are predominantly caused by surgical factors or minor symptoms such as pain or nausea. Surgical factors are also the main causes of unplanned admissions. Age greater than 85, significant co-morbidity and multiple admissions to hospital in the 6 months preceding ambulatory surgery, however, are associated with higher readmission rates. SUMMARY: Evidence indicates that ambulatory anesthesia is currently very safe. Ambulatory surgery, however, is being offered to a population with increasing co-morbidity. As the population undergoing ambulatory surgery changes over time, the evidence regarding patient outcomes will need re-examination.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in AnaesthesiologySame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207