Recurrence of inguinal hernia in general and hernia specialty hospitals in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared hernia recurrence rates in patients undergoing primary elective inguinal hernia repair at general hospitals with the Shouldice Hospital in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We conducted an administrative data analysis of persons who underwent inguinal hernia repair in Ontario, Canada from 1993-2007. Risk of recurrent hernia repair was estimated according to hospital type and volume, using Cox proportional-hazards regression models. RESULTS: Recurrence risk in the lowest volume quartile was 5.7%, compared to 3.9% at high volume general hospitals and 1.1% at the Shouldice hospital. Compared to persons who had surgery at the lowest volume hospitals, hernia recurrence among Shouldice Hospital patients was substantially lower after adjustment for confounding variables (hazard ratio 0.18, CI (0.16 to 0.19), P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Persons who had elective primary inguinal hernia repair at the Shouldice Hospital had a substantially lower risk of recurrence than those treated at general hospitals, including high volume general hospitals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".