MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092357346 · doi:10.1002/bjs.6156

Caveats in the interpretation of the surgical literature

2008· review· en· W2092357346 on OpenAlexaff
U. Guller

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish journal of surgery · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterpretation (philosophy)General surgeryMEDLINESurgeryLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to appraise research literature critically is an invaluable tool in the era of evidence-based medicine. The objective of this educational article is to highlight certain caveats that are important to those who seek to interpret the surgical literature. These caveats are illustrated with intuitive examples drawn from the field of surgery. It is hoped that the article will help surgeons to recognize the common pitfalls encountered when interpreting scientific reports. This is important if research findings are to be transferred appropriately into the realm of clinical practice.

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)0.321
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.573
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3210.573
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0150.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.031
Scholarly communication0.0130.014
Open science0.0090.009
Research integrity0.0070.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.223 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish journal of surgerySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207