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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hernia sac is a common surgical pathology specimen which can occasionally yield unexpected diagnoses. The College of American Pathologists recommends microscopic examination of abdominal hernias, but leaves submission of inguinal hernias for histology to the discretion of the pathologist. To validate this approach at a tertiary care centre, we retrospectively reviewed 1426 hernia sacs derived from inguinal, femoral and abdominal wall hernias. The majority of pathologies noted were known to the clinician, including herniated bowel, lipomas and omentum. A malignancy was noted in three of 800 inguinal hernias and seven of 576 abdominal wall hernias; five of these lesions were not seen on gross examination. Other interesting findings in hernia sacs included appendices, endometriosis, a perivascular epithelioid cell tumour, and pseudomyxoma peritoneii. All hernia sacs should be examined grossly as most pathologies are grossly visible. The decision to submit inguinal hernias for histology may be left to the discretion of the pathologist, but abdominal and femoral hernias should be submitted for histology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it