Motion – Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication Is More Cost Effective Than Oral PPI Administration: Arguments for the Motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a mechanical disorder of the foregut. While medications can only provide symptom relief, surgery can correct the pathophysiological abnormality of the lower esophageal sphincter. The costs of medical and surgical therapy are much greater than the costs of medication or hospitalization alone. In the case of medical therapy, one must consider the costs of serial monitoring and of failed treatment. The effectiveness of treatment also depends on patient-related factors, including weight, socioeconomic factors, smoking, alcohol use, dietary habits and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Surgical results depend on the experience and skill of the surgeon, as well as the attributes of the institution in which the procedure is undertaken. Therefore, studies that come from specialized centres may not be applicable to the community. Data from the author's facility indicate that laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication is the most cost effective option when it is undertaken by experienced surgeons on otherwise healthy patients who have documented gastroesophageal reflux disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".