MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088816418 · doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1721-x

Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Clinical and Economic Evidence

2011· review· en· W2088816418 on OpenAlexafffund
Raj Padwal, Scott Klarenbach, Natasha Wiebe, Maureen Hazel, Daniel W. Birch, Shahzeer Karmali, Arya M. Sharma, Braden Manns, Marcello Tonelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of General Internal Medicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleUniversity of AlbertaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsMedicineSleeve gastrectomyRandomized controlled trialWeight lossSurgeryComorbidityGastrectomyGastric bypass surgeryObesityGastric bypassInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.009
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations203
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of General Internal MedicineSame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207