MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940911396 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.180635

Enhanced recovery after surgery: implementing a new standard of surgical care

2019· review· en· W2940911396 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of ManitobaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultidisciplinary approachPerioperativeSurgeryComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

nhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is an evidencebased and multidisciplinary perioperative care pathway and a surgical quality improvement initiative, which has been shown to promote patient mobilization, reduce complication rates after surgery, decrease hospital length of stay and reduce costs, if carefully implemented. There is an increasing interest across Canada to implement enhanced recovery after surgery recommendations. 1 Several Canadian institutions have succeeded in implementing an official ERAS protocol. However, it can be challenging to start such a program 2 because it requires multidisciplinary effort and the buy-in of many stakeholders. Because the ERAS approach has been shown to decrease the stress of surgery 3 through its objective to maintain patients' normal physiology as far as possible, any patient undergoing surgery could benefit from the approach.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.284 · 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