MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019588978 · doi:10.30944/20117582.629

Manejo del cáncer colorrectal durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2

2020· article· es· W3019588978 on OpenAlexaff
Raúl Eduardo Pinilla Morales, Antonio Caycedo‐Marulanda, Jorge Mario Castro, María Alejandra Fuentes-Sandoval

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Colombiana de Cirugía · 2020
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El virus SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Respiratory Acute Síndrome por Coronavirus-2) es un beta-coronavirus, que se transmite de persona a persona a través de aerosoles generados por tos o estornudos y por contacto directo con las manos contaminadas a través de las mucosas, causando principalmente compromiso respiratorio. Su origen se considera la ciudad de Wuhan en China y debido a su alta transmisibilidad se convirtió rápidamente en una pandemia, afectando de diferentes formas un gran porcentaje de la población, incluido el personal de la salud, con gran morbi-mortalidad. Esto ha llevado a tomar medidas estrictas con respecto a la disponibilidad del recurso sanitario para atender a la población afectada, así como a la prevención y el manejo de la contaminación de los pacientes no infectados que requieren seguir siendo atendidos por otro tipo de patologías, como es el caso de los pacientes oncológicos. En este trabajo pretendemos revisar el manejo de los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal a la luz de la pandemia, del momento ideal de ser llevados a cirugía, de las opciones del abordaje quirúrgico, de la pertinencia de la colonoscopia diagnóstica y terapéutica, así como de la importancia que reviste la experiencia del cirujano y la institución en el manejo multidisciplinario de la patología colorrectal y de la pandemia de COVID-19. Considerando que la literatura actual está basada en recomendaciones de expertos con bajo grado de evidencia, la intención es presentar algunas sugerencias motivadas en la experiencia de nuestras propias instituciones, guiadas por la literatura disponible y en constante evolución.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Colombiana de CirugíaSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207