MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045420793 · doi:10.1007/s00268-014-2775-9

The Rate‐Limiting Step: The Provision of Safe Anesthesia in Low‐Income Countries

2014· article· en· W2045420793 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Hendel, Thomas Coonan, Sarah Thomas, Kelly McQueen

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeveloping countryEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The importance of safe anesthesia for the best possible surgical outcomes in every patient is not disputed in high resource settings. Low-income countries lag far behind in the provision of, and training for, safe anesthesia practice. Too little is known about numbers and types of providers in a majority of low-income countries. METHODS: A review of the member societies of the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists was undertaken, and membership statistics of national societies were requested. Of the 126 members of the federation, only 14 represent low-income countries. Many non-federation-member countries are also low-income countries. RESULTS: The anesthesia infrastructure and personnel challenges in low-income countries contribute to poor patient outcomes and limited access to emergency and essential surgery. The presence of a functional anesthesia society provides a measure of the numbers of providers and a snapshot of local professional activities. CONCLUSION: The establishment and maintenance of an anesthesia society is an indicator of respect for the profession and commitment to standards of practice, quality initiatives, and continuing medical education within the country.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of SurgerySame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207