MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027523570 · doi:10.1503/cjs.018018

Waste and recycling among orthopedic subspecialties

2020· article· en· W3027523570 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Environmental Waste Management
Canadian institutionsBP (Canada)
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineOrthopedic surgeryMedical physicsWaste managementSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: It is estimated that one-quarter to half of all hospital waste is produced in the operating room. Recycling of surgical waste in the perioperative setting is uncommon, even though there are many recyclable materials. The objective of this study was to determine the amount of waste produced in the preoperative and operative periods for several orthopedic subspecialties and to assess how much of this waste was recycled. Methods: Surgical cases at 1 adult and 1 pediatric tertiary care hospital in Calgary, Alberta, were prospectively chosen from 6 orthopedic subspecialties over a 1-month period. Waste was collected, weighed and divided into recyclable and nonrecyclable categories in the preoperative period and into recyclable, nonrecyclable, linen and biological categories in the intraoperative period. Waste bags were weighed using a portable hand-held scale. The primary outcome was the amount of recyclable waste produced per case. Secondary outcomes included the amount of nonrecyclable, biological and total waste produced. An analysis of variance was performed to test for statistically significant differences among subspecialties. Results: This study included 55 procedures. A total of 341.0 kg of waste was collected, with a mean mass of 6.2 kg per case. Arthroplasty produced a greater amount of recyclable waste per case in the preoperative (2017.1 g) and intraoperative (938.6 g) periods as well as total recyclable waste per case, resulting in a greater ratio of waste recycling per case then nearly all other subspecialties in the preoperative (86%) and intraoperative (14%) periods. Arthroplasty similarly produced a greater amount of nonrecyclable waste per case (5823.6 g) than the other subspecialties, most of which was produced during the intraoperative period (5512.9 g). Overall an average of 27% of waste was recycled per case. Conclusion: Among orthopedic subspecialties, arthroplasty is one of the largest waste producers and it has the highest potential for recycling of materials. Effective recycling programs in the operating room can reduce our ecological footprint by diverting waste from landfills, as our study revealed that nearly three-quarters of this waste is recyclable.

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)0.000
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 score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.161 · 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