MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094104959 · doi:10.3928/01477447-20110714-44

TKA Sans Tourniquet: Let It Bleed: Opposes

2011· article· en· W2094104959 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopedics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTourniquetContraindicationDeep veinSurgeryIncidence (geometry)AnesthesiaBlood lossThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature supports the routine use of a tourniquet during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With tourniquet use, there is decreased intraoperative blood loss with subsequent improved visibility and a bloodless surgical field. This facilitates efficiency with the potential for decreased operating time. Increased operating time has been associated with an increase in the incidence of infection after TKA. Opponents of routine tourniquet use cite rare or theoretical concerns. Multiple authors have concluded that the incidence of deep vein thrombosis is not related to using a tourniquet. The rare events of muscle dysfunction or nerve injury are transient. Peripheral vascular disease, in which patients have no palpable distal pulses, should be considered a possible contraindication to the use of a tourniquet during TKA. If tourniquet time and pressure are respected during TKA, we believe the benefits outweigh the perceived and theoretical concerns.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.225 · 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