Transversus Abdominis Plane Block: Reply
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We thank Dr. Grocott1 for his interest in our review article pertaining to transversus abdominis plane block.2 In his commentary, Dr. Grocott criticized “the lack of any specific mention of the end points that should be included in potential future trials.”1 Unfortunately, such statement is factually incorrect, as the review advocated for the inclusion of patient-centered outcomes (e.g., postoperative pain, breakthrough opioid consumption), functional outcomes (e.g., return of bowel function), adverse events (e.g., hypotension), as well as hard outcomes (e.g., length of stay) and cost analyses. Despite calling for “relevant” outcomes, Grocott has added no further suggestion to enhance our list.The purpose of our article was to review the current literature relevant to transversus abdominis plane blocks. We concluded that the latter require further investigation with well-designed trials. Although good study design inherently demands a judicious selection of primary and secondary outcomes, it was not within the scope of the review to map out future trial design by providing an exhaustive list of said outcomes.The authors declare no competing interests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".