MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089042081 · doi:10.1142/s0218810413500342

CONTINUOUS INFRACLAVICULAR BRACHIAL PLEXUS BLOCKADE: EFFECT ON SURVIVAL OF REPLANTED DIGITS

2013· article· en· W2089042081 on OpenAlexaff
Ahtsham U. Niazi, Hossam El‐Beheiry, Reva Ramlogan, Brent Graham, Herbert P. von Schroeder, Paul S. Tumber

Bibliographic record

VenueHand Surgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsTrillium Health CentreToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReplantationNumerical digitLogistic regressionBrachial plexusSurgeryAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In replantation surgery, the use of continuous brachial plexus blockade (CBPB) is popular as it improves postoperative analgesia and vascular flow. The aim of our study was to determine whether CBPB may affect the odds of survivability of replanted digit(s). A four-year retrospective chart review was performed and various parameters affecting replant survival were examined. Outcome was recorded as successful if the transplanted digit(s) survived six months after discharge. All the independent variables were forced into a regression model without using a specific variable selection algorithm. The data for 146 patients was obtained from our chart review. The success rate of replanted digits in the patients reviewed was 65.8%. The logistic regression model showed a relation between the number of digits injured and replanted digit(s) survival. Our study showed that CBPB has no effect on the survivability of the replanted digit(s) till six months after hospital discharge.

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)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHand SurgerySame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207