MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2418557687

Patients' desire for information about anaesthesia: a survey in a teaching hospital.

2002· article· en· W2418557687 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hoe Ks, Karis Bm

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeGeneral anaesthesiaRegional anaesthesiaAnesthesiaElective surgeryPain reliefGeneral surgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes and desire of Malaysian patients for information about anaesthesia and compare the result to that of other similar studies in other countries namely Scotland, Canada, Australia and denMark. Two hundred and forty patients undergoing elective surgery were asked to complete a preoperative quentionnaire examining their desire for information relating to anaesthesia. As in all countries compared, most Malaysian patients were interested to know the time they could start to mobilize from the bed and the time to commence normal oral intake postoperatively. Information related to postoperative pain and pain relief was also highly desired. However, patients showed less interest towards information about perioperative anaesthetic or surgical procedures and drug used. Unlike Australian patients, the Malaysian patients showed less interest about perioperative complications. As in other countries, patients under the age of 50 years had a greater desire for information than those who were older. However there was no difference in desire for information between male and female patients. Patients who have had previous anaesthesia would ask more information compared to those who had none.

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)0.004
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→