Hemodynamic monitoring for fetal surgery: open versus fetoscopic repair of myelomeningocele
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Saracoglu A, Saracoglu K, Canaz H, Alatas I, Gedikbasi A, Kafali IH. Haemodynamic monitoring for foetal surgery: open versus foetoscopic repair of myelomeningocele. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy. 2018;50(5):385-386. APA Saracoglu, A., Saracoglu, K., Canaz, H., Alatas, I., Gedikbasi, A., & Kafali, I. H. (2018). Haemodynamic monitoring for foetal surgery: open versus foetoscopic repair of myelomeningocele. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, 50(5), 385-386. Chicago Saracoglu, Ayten, Kemal T. Saracoglu, Huseyin Canaz, Ibrahim Alatas, Ali Gedikbasi, and Ibrahim H Kafali. 2018. "Haemodynamic monitoring for foetal surgery: open versus foetoscopic repair of myelomeningocele". Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy 50 (5): 385-386. Harvard Saracoglu, A., Saracoglu, K., Canaz, H., Alatas, I., Gedikbasi, A., and Kafali, I. (2018). Haemodynamic monitoring for foetal surgery: open versus foetoscopic repair of myelomeningocele. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, 50(5), pp.385-386. MLA Saracoglu, Ayten et al. "Haemodynamic monitoring for foetal surgery: open versus foetoscopic repair of myelomeningocele." Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, vol. 50, no. 5, 2018, pp. 385-386. Vancouver Saracoglu A, Saracoglu K, Canaz H, Alatas I, Gedikbasi A, Kafali I. Haemodynamic monitoring for foetal surgery: open versus foetoscopic repair of myelomeningocele. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy. 2018;50(5):385-386.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".