MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466891555 · doi:10.1097/gco.0000000000000296

Prevention and management of urologic injury during gynecologic laparoscopy

2016· review· en· W2466891555 on OpenAlexaff
Austin D. Findley, M. Jonathon Solnik

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUreteral procedures and complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystoscopyUrinary systemLaparoscopyHysterectomySurgeryGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article provides an update on the best practices for the prevention, recognition, and management of urinary tract injuries that may occur during gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Higher surgical volume is directly associated with improved surgical outcomes, denoted by consistently lower rates of complications for commonplace procedures such as hysterectomy. As a result, expert opinion on prevention of iatrogenic urologic injury suggests a real need for improved education and training of gynecologic surgeons. Discontinued manufacturing of indigo carmine has led to the utilization of alternative methods to assess ureteral patency during cystoscopy, such as phenazopyridine or sodium fluorescein. Intraoperative cystoscopy has been shown to detect approximately 50% of urinary tract injuries during hysterectomy, but has limited accuracy and does not necessarily decrease delayed postoperative complications. When identified, most urologic injuries can be managed in a minimally invasive fashion. SUMMARY: A thorough understanding of pelvic anatomy and early recognition of urinary tract injuries can significantly reduce surgical morbidity for women undergoing laparoscopic 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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicUreteral procedures and complicationsFrench-language works237,207