MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807820203 · doi:10.3748/wjg.v24.i23.2518

Comparing outcomes for endoscopic submucosal dissection between Eastern and Western countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018· review· en· W2807820203 on OpenAlexafffund
Dane Christina Daoud, Nicolas Suter, Madéleine Durand, Mickaël Bouin, B Faulques, Daniel von Renteln

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsEndoscopic submucosal dissectionMeta-analysisMedicineMEDLINEEndoscopic mucosal resectionSurgeryCINAHLCochrane LibraryGeneral surgerySystematic reviewResectionInternal medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To compare endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) outcomes between Eastern and Western countries. METHODS: or R0 resection rates. Secondary outcomes were complication rates, local recurrence rates and procedure times. RESULTS: 77 min). CONCLUSION: Eastern countries show better ESD outcomes compared to Western countries. Availability of local ESD expertise and regional outcomes should be considered for decision making to treat gastrointestinal lesions with ESD.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations84
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207