MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127778392 · doi:10.1177/1553350610379426

Measuring Processes of Care in General Surgery: Assessment of Technical and Nontechnical Skills

2010· review· en· W2127778392 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre-Anthony E. Leake, David R. Urbach

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Innovation · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineQuality (philosophy)Health carePatient careSurgical proceduresNursingMedical educationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring the quality of health care is becoming increasingly important. Quality is often conceptualized as 3 dimensions of care: structures, processes, and outcomes. Unfortunately, there is little consensus about what should be measured--and how it should be measured--when it comes to measuring processes of care related to the conduct of surgical procedures. This article reviews recent advances in surgical quality of care measurement with particular emphasis on processes of care, and evaluates existing measures of technical and nontechnical surgical skills as measures of quality of care in surgery.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical InnovationSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207