MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034124738 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0000000000000033

Whatʼs new in operative trauma surgery in the last 10 years

2013· review· en· W2034124738 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Beckett, Homer Tien

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed Forces
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBattlefieldTrauma centerPenetrating traumaContext (archaeology)General surgeryAmputationEmergency surgeryTrauma surgerySurgeryBluntRetrospective cohort studyOrthopedic surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews the latest operative trauma surgery techniques and strategies, which have been published in the last 10 years. Many of the articles we reviewed come directly from combat surgery experience and may be also applied to the severely injured civilian trauma patient and in the context of terrorist attacks on civilian populations. RECENT FINDINGS: We reviewed the most important innovations in operative trauma surgery; the use of ultrasound and computed tomography in the preoperative evaluation of the penetrating trauma patient, the use of temporary vascular shunts, the current management of military wounds, the use of preperitoneal packing in pelvic fractures and the management of the multiple traumatic amputation patient. SUMMARY: The last 10 years of conflict has produced a wealth of experience and novel techniques in operative trauma surgery. The articles we review here are essential for the contemporary care of the severely injured trauma patient, whether they are card for in a level 1 trauma center or in a field hospital at the edge of a battlefield.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.303
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Critical CareSame topicPelvic and Acetabular InjuriesFrench-language works237,207