MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095857587 · doi:10.1177/0840470420969915

Case costing in spine surgery: Can surgeons assist with accurate capture of operating room costs?

2020· article· en· W3095857587 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Glennie, William Oxner, Jacob Alant, Sean Barry, Sean Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivity-based costingDocumentationMedicineHealth careOperations managementWork (physics)Medical emergencyBusinessComputer scienceEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgical case costing is critical for health leaders to make decisions about resource utilization. Synoptic reporting offers the potential for surgeons to capture these costs and work with other leaders to make evidence-based decisions. The purpose of this study was to determine whether surgeons documented intra-operative cost drivers as part of their operative report. This article outlines a synoptic reporting system at a quaternary spine care centre. Data were captured from 2015 to 2020. Surgeon rates of documentation for specific devices, bone graft, and surgical adjuncts were evaluated. It is hoped that the results of this survey will help to guide programs to capture costs in other settings.

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)0.000
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 score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicDigital Imaging in MedicineFrench-language works237,207