Canadian Association of General Surgeons and American College of Surgeons evidence based reviews in surgery. 17. The timing of elective colectomy in diverticulitis: a decision analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CAGS Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery The term “evidence-based medicine” was first coined by Sackett and colleagues as “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.”1 The key to practising evidence-based medicine is applying the best current knowledge to decisions in individual patients. Medical knowledge is continually and rapidly expanding, and it is impossible for an individual clinician to read all the medical literature. For clinicians to practise evidence-based medicine, they must have the skills to read and interpret the medical literature so that they can determine the validity, reliability, credibility and utility of individual articles. These skills are known as critical appraisal skills. Generally, critical appraisal requires that the clinician have some knowledge of biostatistics, clinical epidemiology, decision analysis and economics, as well as clinical knowledge. In October 2005, the American College of Surgeons joined with the Canadian Association of General Surgeons to sponsor a program entitled “Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery (EBRS),” which is supported by an educational grant from ETHICON and ETHICON ENDO SURGERY, both units of Johnson & Johnson Medical Products, a division of Johnson & Johnson, and ETHICON INC. and ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. divisions of Johnson & Johnson Inc. The primary objective of this initiative is to help practising surgeons improve their critical appraisal skills. During the academic year, 8 clinical articles are chosen for review and discussion. They are selected not only for their clinical relevance to general surgeons but also because they cover a spectrum of issues important to surgeons; for example, causation or risk factors for disease, natural history or prognosis of disease, how to quantify disease (measurement issues), diagnostic tests and the early diagnosis of disease, and the effectiveness of treatment. A methodological article is supplied that guides the reader in critical appraisal of the clinical article. Both methodological and clinical reviews of the article are performed by experts in the relevant areas and posted on the EBRS Web site. As well, a listserv discussion is held where participants can discuss the monthly article. Members of the Canadian Association of General Surgeons and the American College of Surgeons can access Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery through the Canadian Association of General Surgeons Web site (www.cags-accg.ca) or the American College of Surgeons Web site (www.facs.org). All journal articles and reviews are available electronically through the EBRS Web site. We also have a library of past articles and reviews that can be accessed at any time. Surgeons who participate in the monthly packages can obtain Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Maintenance of Certification credits and/or continuing medical education credits for the current article only by reading the monthly articles, participating in the listserv discussion, completing the monthly online evaluation and answering the online multiple choice questionnaire. For further information about EBRS, the reader is directed to the CAGS or ACS Web site or should email the administrator, Marg McKenzie, at ac.no.ianistm@eiznekcmm. In addition to making the reviews available through the CAGS and ACS Web sites, 4 of the reviews are published in condensed versions in the Canadian Journal of Surgery and 4 in the Journal of the American College of Surgery each year. We hope readers will find EBRS useful in improving their critical appraisal skills and also in keeping abreast of new developments in general surgery. Comments regarding EBRS may also be directed to ac.no.ianistm@eiznekcmm.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.013 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".