MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551520894 · doi:10.5603/ait.a2016.0049

Isolated lower limb gangrene: a caveat of terlipressin therapy

2016· article· pl· W2551520894 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ankur Khandelwal, Devendra Gupta, Rudrashish Haldar, Anindita Rai

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesiology Intensive Therapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerlipressinMedicineGangreneIntensive careIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicineCirrhosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Khandelwal A, Gupta D, Haldar R, Rai A. Isolated lower limb gangrene: a caveat of terlipressin therapy. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy. 2016;48(5). APA Khandelwal, A., Gupta, D., Haldar, R., & Rai, A. (2016). Isolated lower limb gangrene: a caveat of terlipressin therapy. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, 48(5). Chicago Khandelwal, Ankur, Devendra Gupta, Rudrashish Haldar, and Anindita Rai. 2016. "Isolated lower limb gangrene: a caveat of terlipressin therapy". Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy 48 (5). Harvard Khandelwal, A., Gupta, D., Haldar, R., and Rai, A. (2016). Isolated lower limb gangrene: a caveat of terlipressin therapy. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, 48(5). MLA Khandelwal, Ankur et al. "Isolated lower limb gangrene: a caveat of terlipressin therapy." Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, vol. 48, no. 5, 2016. Vancouver Khandelwal A, Gupta D, Haldar R, Rai A. Isolated lower limb gangrene: a caveat of terlipressin therapy. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy. 2016;48(5).

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiology Intensive TherapySame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207