An analysis of appendectomies performed in a Labrador general surgery practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The main objective of our study was to determine the rates of negative appendectomies and perforated appendices at the Labrador Health Centre, and make a comparison with the rates published in the literature. METHODS: The study population consisted of all patients who underwent appendectomies during the 5-year period ending Apr. 3, 2006. The number and rates of negative appendectomies and perforated appendices were determined for each age and sex category. RESULTS: Of the 64 patients who were included in the study, 11% were found to have undergone negative appendectomies and 27% had perforated appendices. There was a clear trend toward decreasing perforation rates with increasing age as well as a trend toward increasing negative appendectomy rates with increasing age. CONCLUSION: The rates of negative appendectomies and perforated appendices at the Labrador Health Centre are comparable with those published in the literature. Trends found in the data will help to guide future improvements in patient management.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".