MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322246693 · doi:10.5035/nishiseisai.51.222

Diagnostic Examination of 15 Small Intestine Injury cases.

2002· article· en· W2322246693 on OpenAlexaff
Izumi Kohsaka, Hisashi Kuroda, Kazuhito Tamehiro, Satoshi Taniwaki, Hiroji Shima, Kenji Yoshida, Takuya Goto

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopedics & Traumatology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's Hospital Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmall intestineMedicinePhysical examinationStomachLarge intestineRadiologyGastroenterologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compared with stomach injury or large intestine injury, free air seldom appears in the diagnostic imaging of small intestine injury, which therefore results in inadequate physical findings and difficully of diagnosis. Fifteen cases which underwent operation for small intestine injury were examined retrospectively from January 1996 to December 2000. With computed tomography examination, free air was found to be up to 73.3% and ascites to 86.6%. These values were high regardless of injury position and injury form. Moreover, there were also cases for which the injury positions could be guessed by CT. We believe that abdominal CT examination is very useful in the diagnosis of small intestine injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopedics & TraumatologySame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207