MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2606947009 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2015.183

Neurosurgery (General Neurosurgery)

2015· article· en· W2606947009 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Z Merali, Sanjeev Sharma, R. Loch Macdonald, E Massicotte

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)Canadian Celiac AssociationToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurosurgeryCritically illMedicineRetrospective cohort studyCohortObservational studyTransfer (computing)Emergency medicineSurgeryIntensive care medicineInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Critically ill neurosurgical patients require expedient access to neurosurgical centers (NC) to improve outcome. In Ontario, many patients are initially evaluated at a non-neurosurgical center (NNC) and subsequently transferred to a NC by a provincial service using air or ground vehicles. We characterized transfers from NNC to NC for critically ill patients. Methods: A retrospective observational analysis was undertaken. The cohort included patients in Ontario with emergent and urgent neurologic pathologies who underwent transfer from a NNC to NC between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. Timing, clinical, and geographic data were collected for each transfer. Results: We identified 1103 emergent/urgent transfers. The mean transfer time to a NC was 3.4hrs (SD – 3.0) and varied by the geographic region of origin. 17% of patients bypassed a closer NC during transfer to their destination NC. Transfers that bypassed a closer NC travelled further (162km vs. 477km, p<0.001), took longer (3.1hrs vs. 3.9hrs, p<0.001), and in some regions were associated with a higher risk of in-transit clinical decline (3.0% vs. 8.3%, p<0.05) when compared with transfers that ended at the closest NC. Conclusions: Transport time to a NC varied across Ontario. Transfers occasionally bypassed the nearest NC, which may reflect neurosurgical bed availability, resource limitations, or patient needs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1660.041

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies→French-language works237,207→