MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409851769

A magnetic mass within the bladder.

2013· article· en· W2409851769 on OpenAlexaff
Fahad Alyami, Jeffrey G. Himmelman, Thomas J. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicForeign Body Medical Cases
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCLIPSForeign bodyMagnetIdeal (ethics)SurgeryRadiologyMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A search of the literature finds that there have been many case reports documenting a wide array of objects found within the bladder, ranging from magnets and paper clips to telephone and aluminum wire. The goal of treatment is to remove the object quickly, using the least invasive method possible. Therefore, the ideal treatment is removal through endoscopic means; however, in some cases, the size, mobility and shape of the foreign body can prevent its removal endoscopically and more invasive means must be employed. We present a case of a patient who inserted 150 magnetic spherical beads into his bladder.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicForeign Body Medical CasesFrench-language works237,207