MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321577191 · doi:10.3109/13645706.2013.821998

25 years of SMIT: The past, the present, and the future of minimally invasive therapy

2013· review· en· W2321577191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eiji Kanehira, Marco Maria Lirici, Andreas Melzer, M. O. Schurr, Elisabeth Hermann-Decker

Bibliographic record

VenueMinimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanInvasive surgeryQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineCarry (investment)General surgeryManagementSurgeryHistoryBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quarter of a century has passed since the Society of Minimally Invasive Therapy (SMIT) was founded in 1989 with the aim to provide a platform to promote the development of minimally invasive therapy and the new instruments and devices needed to carry out the new surgical techniques. Both the founder of the society, British urologist John EA Wickham, and the German surgeon Gerhard F Buess, who was one of the leading members from the beginning, conceived SMIT as an interdisciplinary forum to promote the cooperation between physicians from various surgical specialties, but also medical engineers, resp. medical device manufacturers, whose expertise was needed to build the instruments that had to be developed to carry out the new concept of surgery. In this paper we outline the history of SMIT over the past 25 years in order to highlight both the ideas behind the society and the dedication of the people who shaped it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinimally Invasive Therapy & Allied TechnologiesSame topicMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesFrench-language works237,207