Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir:FigureWe thank Dr. Otiv for the Letter to the Editor regarding our article featured in the December issue of the Journal, entitled “Intravenous Fluid Infusion Rate in Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction: Important Lessons Learned from 354 Free Flaps” (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:1153–1160). Most of your queries are outlined in the multivariable analysis section in the article, including Table 3 and the plot in Figure 1; however, we understand that your questions were based on access to the abstract alone and unfortunately all of the information could not be conveyed in the abstract. Please refer to our responses to your queries below: Odds ratio (Table 4). Confidence interval of the odds ratio (Table 4). Whether crystalloid infusion rate was used as a numerical/categorical variable and whether it was the latter, whether dummy variables were used and different nominal variables for the extremes were used. Fig. 1: A parabolic relationship was found between crystalloid infusion volume and complications. Reprinted from Zhong T, Neinstein R, Massey C, et al. Intravenous fluid infusion rate in microsurgical breast reconstruction: Important lessons learned from 354 free flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:1153–1160.Table 4: Multivariate Analysis of Factors Associated with Postoperative ComplicationsThe crystalloid infusion rate was used as a continuous variable in the units of milliliters per kilogram per 24 hours. Below are the formulas used for calculating the estimated probability of complication based on crystalloid and time under anesthesia (–2.8550 is the intercept from the logistic model). It is important to note that the model is based on a data set with only 54 events, so it is not recommended that someone use it to try to predict the likelihood of a complication, as there would be a lot of uncertainty surrounding these probabilities. Toni Zhong, F.R.S.C.(C.), M.H.S. Stefan O. P. Hofer, M.D., Ph.D. University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.
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 | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.035 |
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".