Plastic Freezer Bags
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review surgical-site infection (SSI) and retrieval-site tumor recurrence rates in laparoscopic colorectal procedures when using a plastic freezer bag as a wound protector. METHODS: Laparoscopic colorectal procedures where a plastic freezer bag used as a wound protector at the extraction site were reviewed between 1991 and 2008 from a prospectively collected database. χ test was used to compare SSI and tumor recurrence rates between groups. Costing data were obtained from the operating room supplies department. RESULTS: A total of 936 cases with 51 (5.45%) surgical-site infections were identified. SSI rates did not differ when comparing groups based on demographic factors, diagnosis, or location of procedure. Retrieval-site tumor recurrence rate was 0.21% (1/474). Cost of plastic freezer bags including sterilization ranged from $0.25 to $3. CONCLUSIONS: Plastic freezer bags as wound protectors in laparoscopic colorectal procedures are cost effective and have SSI and retrieval-site tumor recurrence rates that compare favorably to published data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".