MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908589240 · doi:10.1111/anae.14561

Time of day and 30‐day mortality after emergency surgery. A reply

2019· letter· en· W2908589240 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Tessler, Louis C. Charland, N. N. Wang, José A. Correa

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTime of dayDay to dayEmergency surgeryNames of the days of the weekEmergency medicineGeneral surgerySurgeryAnimal scienceOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Dr Kamal for his interest in our study 1. We included the following variables in our logistic regression model: age; sex; ASA physical status; emergency category; day of surgery; duration of anaesthesia; and type of surgery. In the paper, we acknowledged that other pre-existing patient morbidities may have varied with the time of surgery and might have affected our results. We acknowledged that our inability to determine the duration of time that the patients waited for surgery was a limitation of our study and agree that this has been shown to impact postoperative mortality 2. We were concerned that surgical or anaesthetic sleep deprivation might have a negative impact on patient care. However, we also considered that fewer hospital personnel might be available overnight, or less familiar with the equipment needed relative to the staffing during the regular working day, also with negative consequences. Our results did not reach statistical significance (p < 0.05), but we consider postoperative mortality, although readily quantifiable, to be an extreme end-point. Further investigation is warranted to determine if there are increased morbidities caused by operating overnight relative to daytime for emergency procedures, hence the conclusion in our paper.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0170.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207