MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920915775 · doi:10.3389/fsurg.2019.00009

A Comprehensive Analysis of Robot-Assisted Surgery Uptake in the Pediatric Surgical Discipline

2019· review· en· W2920915775 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Surgery · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCitationScopusCitation analysisBibliometricsIndex (typography)LaparoscopyMEDLINESurgeryLibrary scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Robotic assisted surgery (RAS) is one of the most recent surgical approaches that has quickly been adopted. Over the last decade, a vast amount of manuscripts has been published. The quality of published literature about this innovative technology remains supported by case-reports and retrospective case-series. Historical behaviour of literature productivity and implementation of laparoscopy followed a similar trend. We present a historical bibliometric comparison of the most cited manuscripts since laparoscopy and RAS were implemented. Materials and Methods: A systematic search and review of the literature was undertaken by the authors. Literature search was performed in OVID, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The search period included all publications between 1985 and June 2018. All languages were included. Data analysis for graphical representation was performed using VOSviewer version 1.6.8 and Impact Index Analysis was used to adjust the citations by the time since publication. Results: A total of 1014 titles were identified. After applying exclusion criteria, 200 papers were included for the RAS arm and 402 for the laparoscopic one. Case-series was the most common type of publication. Average citations for laparoscopic manuscripts was 23 (SD +/- 31) and for RAS was 20 (SD +/- 31.5). The impact index analysis showed an average of 95 (SD +/-167) for laparoscopic manuscripts vs 66 (SD 101+/-) for RAS. The laparoscopic manuscript with the highest citation count had 199 citations with an impact index of 12.1. And the RAS manuscript with the highest citation count had 280 citations and an impact index of 4.3. Conclusion: Literature productivity in pediatric laparoscopic and RAS has quickly grown. Level of evidence literature productivity has been similar for both technologies with more impact for RAS in the community, exponentially growing at a faster pace than how laparoscopy was sin introduction. Current graduating generations have had a significant exposure to RAS during their adult training and for this reason we believe RAS has remained a leading topic in the pediatric urology specialty. Future directives need to focus on increasing the level of evidence to support innovation and development of pediatric instruments.

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.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.244 · 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