MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418118883 · doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e318276ce3f

Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose Imitating Pelvic Abscess

2013· article· en· W2418118883 on OpenAlex
Sadikah Behbehani, Togas Tulandi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemostasis and retained surgical items
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbscessCelluloseSurgeryOxidized celluloseRadiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Oxidized regenerated cellulose is a topical hemostatic agent that is used commonly in abdominal and pelvic surgery. Although oxidized regenerated cellulose mimicking an abscess has been reported after different operations, little is known about its side effects after gynecologic surgery. CASES: Two women were diagnosed with postoperative abscess and intra-abdominal oxidized regenerated cellulose was identified as an abscess or as part of an abscess on computed tomography imaging. Both women recovered after treatment with antibiotics with and without drainage. CONCLUSION: Oxidized regenerated cellulose may be mistaken for an abscess or as part of an abscess on imaging studies. It is important to reveal information about oxidized regenerated cellulose use to the imaging department.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.235 · 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