MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058893413 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181f9c288

Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Consensus Statement on Perioperative Blood Glucose Management in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery

2010· review· en· W2058893413 on OpenAlexaff
Girish P. Joshi, Frances Chung, Mary Ann Vann, Shireen Ahmad, Tong J. Gan, Douglas G. Merrill, Rebecca S. Twersky

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatoryPerioperativeGlycemicIntensive care medicineGrading (engineering)PopulationMEDLINEAnesthesiaSurgeryDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal evidence-based perioperative blood glucose control in patients undergoing ambulatory surgical procedures remains controversial. Therefore, the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia has developed a consensus statement on perioperative glycemic management in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. A systematic review of the literature was conducted according the protocol recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The consensus panel used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for providing suggestions. It was revealed that there is insufficient evidence to provide strong recommendations for the posed clinical questions. In the absence of high-quality evidence, recommendations were based on general principles of blood glucose control in diabetics, drug pharmacology, and data from inpatient surgical population, as well as clinical experience and judgment. In addition, areas of further research were also identified.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations295
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patientsFrench-language works237,207