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 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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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