MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606094605 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.4170

Impact of smartphone digital photography, email, and media communication on emergency room visits post-hypospadias repair

2017· article· en· W2606094605 on OpenAlex
Michael Chua, Megan Saunders, Paul R. Bowlin, Jessica M. Ming, Roberto Iglesias Lopes, Walid A. Farhat, Joana Dos Santos

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypospadiasMedicineConfidence intervalStatistical significanceCohortGroup BProspective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Advances in communication technology are shaping our medical practice. To date, there is no clear evidence that this mode of communication will have any effect on unnecessary postoperative emergency room (ER) visits. We aim to evaluate the effect of email and media communication with application of smartphone digital photography on post-hypospadias repair ER visit rates. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included all patients who underwent hypospadias repair performed by a single surgeon from October 2014 to November 2015. Patients were categorized into two groups: Group A consented for smartphone photography and email communication and Group B declined. Reason for ER visits within 30 days postoperatively was assessed by another physician, who was blinded of patient group assignment. The reasons were categorized as: unnecessary ER visit, indicated ER visit, or visit unrelated to hypospadias surgery. Chi-square test and T-test were used for statistical analysis. Relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were also calculated. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: Over a 14-month period, 96 patients underwent hypospadias repair (81 in Group A, 15 in Group B 5). No significant difference was noted between groups for overall ER return rate (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.21, 1.0). However, the number of ER visits for wound check not requiring intervention was significantly lower in Group A than in Group B (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.035, 0.56); likewise, a higher number of ER visits requiring intervention was noted in Group A compared with Group B, although statistically this was not significant (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.23, 12.21). CONCLUSIONS: Email communication with the use of smartphone digital photography significantly reduced the number of unnecessary ER visits for post-hypospadias wound checks.

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.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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