MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048500631 · doi:10.1097/grf.0000000000000100

Transition to Office-based Obstetric and Gynecologic Procedures

2015· review· en· W2048500631 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Peacock, MAY E. THOMASSEE, Valerie Williams, Amy Young

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReimbursementStaffingMedical emergencyPatient satisfactionPatient safetyCoding (social sciences)NursingOperations managementHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Office-based surgery is increasingly desired by patients and providers due to ease of access, overall efficiency, reimbursement, and satisfaction. The adoption of office-based surgery requires careful consideration of safety, efficacy, cost, and feasibility within a providers practice. This article reviews the currently available data regarding patient and provider satisfaction as well as practical considerations of staffing, equipment, and supplies. To aid the practitioner, issues of office-based anesthesia and safety with references to currently available national guidelines and protocols are provided. Included is a brief review of billing, coding, and reimbursement. Technical procedural aspects with information and recommendations are summarized.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207