Watchful waiting was as safe as surgical repair for minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Giobbie-Hurder A, Gibbs JO, et al . Watchful waiting vs repair of inguinal hernia in minimally symptomatic men: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006;295:285–92. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic inguinal hernias, is watchful waiting as safe as surgical repair? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★★☆ Surgery—general ★★★★★★★ Surgery—gastrointestinal ★★★★★★★ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: concealed.* ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: blinded (site investigators and study personnel were blinded to outcome data).* ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: 2 years. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: 4 community and academic centres in the US (Omaha, NE; Marshfield, WI; Dallas, TX; and Albuquerque, NM) and 1 in Canada (Montreal, Quebec). ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 724 men who were ⩾18 years of age (mean age 58 y) and had asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic inguinal hernia (including chronically incarcerated hernias). Exclusion criteria: undetectable hernias, local or systemic infection, or American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status >3. 4 patients were excluded after randomisation because of ineligibility. ### ![Graphic][11]</img>Intervention: watchful waiting (n = 366) or tension free hernia repair (n = 358). ### ![Graphic][12]</img>Outcomes: pain and … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.issn%253D0002-9955%26rft.aulast%253DFitzgibbons%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BJ.%26rft.volume%253D295%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D285%26rft.epage%253D292%26rft.atitle%253DWatchful%2BWaiting%2Bvs%2BRepair%2Bof%2BInguinal%2BHernia%2Bin%2BMinimally%2BSymptomatic%2BMen%253A%2BA%2BRandomized%2BClinical%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.295.3.285%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16418463%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.295.3.285&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16418463&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F3%2F73.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000234684500021&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif [12]: /embed/inline-graphic-8.gif
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it