MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335259187 · doi:10.1097/aco.0b013e3283593100

History of anesthesia for ambulatory surgery

2012· review· en· W2335259187 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Richard D. Urman, Sukumar P. Desai

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Anaesthesiology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenAnesthesia Quality Institute
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatorySpecialtyPerioperativeIntensive care medicineGeneral surgeryAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Anesthesia for ambulatory surgery has come a long way since 1842 when James Venable underwent surgery for removal of a neck mass with Crawford W. Long administering ether and also being the surgeon. We examine major advances over the past century and a half. RECENT FINDINGS: The development of anesthesia as a medical specialty is perhaps the single most important improvement that has enabled advances in the surgical specialties. Moreover, improved equipment, monitoring, training, evaluation of patients, discovery of better anesthetic agents, pain control, and the evolution of perioperative care are the main reasons why ambulatory anesthesia remains so safe in modern times. The development of less invasive surgical techniques, economic factors, and patient preferences provided addition impetus to the popularity of ambulatory surgery. SUMMARY: Beyond the discovery in the mid-19th century that ether and nitrous oxide could be used to render patients unconscious during surgical procedures, subsequent developments in our specialty have added modestly, in a stepwise manner, to reduce mortality and morbidity associated with its use. These improvements have allowed us to safely meet the steadily increasing demand for ambulatory surgery.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.399
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.027 · 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

Citations42
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in AnaesthesiologySame topicMedical History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207