MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995486741 · doi:10.1503/cjs.002317

Vascular trauma: Does experience in the United States apply to a Canadian centre?

2019· article· en· W2995486741 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shane Smith, Vivian C. McAlister, Neil Parry, Adam Power, Kelly Vogt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyTrauma careMajor traumaTrauma centreEmergency medicineVascular surgeryMedical emergencySurgeryInternal medicineCardiac surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary: Trauma care has evolved similarly in the United States and Canada over the last 3 decades. Like much of modern trauma care, management of vascular trauma has been influenced by combat surgery experiences in recent wars. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma sponsored the Prospective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment (PROOVIT) registry to document changes in the treatment of vascular trauma and determine outcomes in the US. However, differences in trauma populations and trauma systems between Canada and the US need to be considered. Here we compare the vascular trauma experience at a Canadian level I trauma centre over a 5-year period to the data in the PROOVIT registry.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207