MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417639978

Use of preoperative erythropoietin in head and neck surgery.

2000· article· en· W2417639978 on OpenAlexaff
Richard M. Gall, Phil Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineErythropoietinHemoglobinSurgeryPerioperativeHead and neckBlood conservationBlood transfusionHead and neck cancerProspective cohort studyAnesthesiaInternal medicineRadiation therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether preoperative erythropoietin can raise the hemoglobin levels of head and neck cancer patients prior to major ablative surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive series. METHODS: Ten patients who were to undergo major head and neck surgery were scheduled to receive subcutaneous doses of erythropoietin (600 IU/kg) on days 21, 14, 7, and 1 prior to surgery. Serial hemoglobin levels and reticulocyte counts were obtained throughout the course of treatment. RESULTS: Eight patients experienced a significant increase in hemoglobin. There were two nonresponders. The mean preoperative hemoglobin level for all 10 patients increased 12.6 g/L, from 135.5 +/- 16.2 g/L (baseline) to 148.1 +/- 23.7 g/L (1 day preoperatively, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Erythropoietin significantly increases hemoglobin levels in patients awaiting major head and neck oncologic surgery. It can be viewed as an important adjunct to other well-established blood conservation techniques aimed at reducing perioperative transfusion rates.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207