MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127060276 · doi:10.1177/0009922808316990

Analgesia and Sedation Practices for Incarcerated Inguinal Hernias in Children

2008· article· en· W2127060276 on OpenAlex
Khalid Alansari, Christopher Sulowski, Savithiri Ratnapalan

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

VenueClinical Pediatrics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationInguinal herniaEmergency departmentHerniaRetrospective cohort studySurgeryAnesthesiaGeneral surgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the use of medications for analgesia and/or sedation for incarcerated inguinal hernia reductions in the emergency department was analyzed. A retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients presenting to a pediatric emergency department with incarcerated inguinal hernia from 2002 to 2005. A total of 99 children presented with incarcerated hernias during the study period. The median age was 11 months. Forty-four percent of children received medication for the procedure, of them 75% received parenteral and 25% oral or intranasal medications. Forty-five percent of children who received medication went through at least 1 hernia reduction attempt initially without medications. More than half the children with incarcerated inguinal hernias did not receive any medication for pain and/or sedation prior to hernia reduction. Guidelines for medication use for children with incarcerated inguinal hernias need to be developed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.322 · 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