Reoperation for Inguinal Hernia Recurrence in Ontario: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the rate of reoperation for recurrent inguinal hernia after primary repair. Methodology: A population-based retrospective cohort study, using administrative data including adult patients in Ontario, Canada undergoing primary inguinal hernia repair (IHR) from April 1, 2003 - December 31, 2012, followed to August 31, 2014. Exposure: Primary IHR techniques: open repair with mesh; open repair without mesh; laparoscopic repair Results: We identified 109,106 adults undergoing primary IHR with 5.6 year median follow-up. The 5-year cumulative risk of recurrent IHR was 1.7% in the open with mesh group, 3.2% in the open without mesh group and 3.0% in the laparoscopic group. After adjusting for patient, surgeon and institution factors, as compared to patients undergoing open repair with mesh, those undergoing open without mesh or laparoscopic repair had higher risk of recurrent IHR (hazard ratio 1.53, 95% CI, 1.33- 1.77 and 1.88, 95% CI, 1.61- 2.20 respectively, p
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".