MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Correspondence

2002· letter· en· W2469237695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish journal of surgery · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeneral surgeryGeneral hospitalAcute appendicitisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Strategy for the surgical management of patients with idiopathic megarectum and megacolon (Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1392–6) Letter : M. A. Gladman, S. M. Scott, P. J. Lunniss, N. S. Williams. Academic Department of Surgery and Gastrointestinal, Physiology Unit, The Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, London E1 1BB, UK Suspected acute appendicitis: trends in management over 30 years (Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1570–7) Letter 1 : M. Quinn. Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Huntingdon PE29 6NT, UK Letter 2 : W. H. Thomson. Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Great Western Road, Gloucester GL1 3NN, UK An unexpected liver secondary (Br J Surg 2001; 88: 627–8) Letter : J. R. M. van der Sijp, S. Meijer. Department of Oncological Surgery, Free University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands A normal appendix found during diagnostic laparoscopy should not be removed (Br J Surg 2001; 88: 251–4) Letter : S. M. Murphy, S. Tierney. Department of Surgery, The Adelaide and Meath Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland Authors' reply: W. T. van den Broek, A. B. Bijnen. Department of Surgery, Medisch Centrum Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands ‘Fast track’ postoperative management protocol for patients with high co-morbidity undergoing complex abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery (Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1533–8) Letter : T. Rix, L. Jourdan. Department of General Surgery, Canada Avenue, Redhill RH1 5RH, UK Authors' reply: C. P. Delaney, A. J. Senagore, F. H. Remzi, V. W. Fazio. Department of Surgery/A-111, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA Prevention of the neoplastic progression of Barrett's oesophagus by endoscopic argon beam plasma ablation (Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1357–62) Letter : A. Immanuel, P. J. Lamb, J. Wayman, S. Preston, S. M. Griffin. Northern Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LP, UK Authors' reply: S. Attwood. Department of Upper GI Surgery, Hope Hospital, Stott Lane, Salford, Manchester M6 8HD, UK Extent of ductal carcinoma in situ within and surrounding invasive primary breast carcinoma (Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1324–9) Letter : K. Moorthy. Department of Surgical Oncology and Technology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY, UK Authors' reply: R. S. Rampaul, S. E. Pinder, J. F. R. Robertson, I. O. Ellis. Department of Surgery and Histopathology, City Hospital, Nottingham NG1 5PB, UK Randomized clinical trial comparing suture and mesh repair of umbilical hernia in adults (Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1321–3) Letter 1 : D. S. Thoman. Department of General Surgery, Naval Medical Center, 34800 Bob Wilson Drive, San Diego, California 92134, USA Letter 2 : H. Chant, P. Tsai, A. Kingsworth. Postgraduate Medical School, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth PL6 8DH, UK Authors' reply: F. Pérez, A. Arroyo. Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Elche, Ptda Huertos y Molinos, s/n, 0302 Elche, Alicante, Spain Prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of glyceryl trinitrate in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-induced pancreatitis (Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1178–82) Letter 1 : M. Moretó, M. Zaballa. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hospital de Cruces, Plaza de Cruces, Barakaldo 48903, Spain Letter 2 : G. Harinath, B. O'Riordan. Department of Surgery, West Wales General Hospital, Carmarthen SA31 2AF, UK Authors' reply: S. Sudhindran. Box 210, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish journal of surgerySame topicEsophageal and GI PathologyFrench-language works237,207