Use and Dissemination of the Brisbane 2000 Nomenclature of Liver Anatomy and Resections
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
INTRODUCTION: The Brisbane 2000 Nomenclature of Hepatic Anatomy and Resections was created to standardize terminology in an area, which previously was characterized by redundant and confusing terms. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use and dissemination of the nomenclature 10 years after its introduction. METHODS: Two strategies were used to evaluate implementation of the terminology. The first depended on an examination of terms used to describe the anatomy and resection of one half of the liver over the 20-year period from 1990 to 2009. The second approach evaluated the use of the terms "section," "sectionectomy," and "trisectionectomy," which, in reference to the liver, are unique to the Brisbane 2000 Nomenclature. RESULTS: The use of the Brisbane 2000 terms "right and left hemihepatectomy/hepatectomy" increased dramatically versus the use of the discarded terms "right and left hepatic lobectomy" after the Nomenclature was introduced in 2000. This was especially true in the Americas and Asia where the terms were used in less than 50% of papers from 1990 to 1999 but reached 80% utilization by 2006. Likewise, use of the terms "section," "sectionectomy," and "trisectionectomy" increased sharply especially in between 2006 and 2009. CONCLUSIONS: The Brisbane terminology is being adopted worldwide but its adoption is still incomplete.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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