MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pros and Cons of Using Prophylactic Drainage in Colorectal Surgery

2009· article· en· W2515616131 on OpenAlexaff
Yuji Toiyama, Yasuhiro Inoue, Minàko Kobayashi, Yasuhiko Mohri, Chikao Miki, Masato Kusunoki

Bibliographic record

VenueNihon Daicho Komonbyo Gakkai Zasshi · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMycobacterium research and diagnosis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Society of Intestinal Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineconsRandomized controlled trialSurgeryDisease controlGeneral surgeryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1999年,Centers for Disease Control and Preventionの手術部位感染の予防に関するガイドラインでは,大腸手術術後に予防的ドレーンを留置する場合には,排液効果が良好でかつ逆行性感染の少ない閉鎖式能動的ドレーンが望ましく,ドレーンは手術創とは別の部位から挿入し,可及的速やかに抜去することが推奨されている.多くのrandomized controlled trialsやメタアナリシスでは大腸手術後の予防的ドレーンの有用性は確認されていない.欧米と我が国ではリンパ節の郭清範囲など術式に差があり,欧米の方法をそのまま導入するわけにはいかないが慣習的なドレーンの留置は手術部位感染,ひいては縫合不全の予防の観点からも望ましくなく,今後は我が国での適切なドレーンの選択,挿入基準を明らかにしていく必要がある.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNihon Daicho Komonbyo Gakkai ZasshiSame topicMycobacterium research and diagnosisFrench-language works237,207