MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186377768 · doi:10.1097/aco.0000000000001043

Same day discharge for craniotomy

2021· review· en· W3186377768 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse Goldmacher, Mark Bernstein, Lashmi Venkatraghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Anaesthesiology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniotomyPerioperativeMedicineAmbulatoryIntensive care medicineAwake craniotomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Same-day protocols for craniotomy have been demonstrated to be feasible and safe. Its several benefits include decreased hospital costs, less nosocomial complications, fewer case cancellations, with a high degree of patient satisfaction. This paper reviews the most recent publications in the field of same-day discharge after craniotomy. RECENT FINDINGS: Since 2019, several studies on same-day neurosurgical procedures were published. Ambulatory craniotomy protocols for brain tumor were successfully implemented in more centers around the world, and for the first time, in a developing country. Additional information emerged on predictors for successful early discharge, and the barriers and enablers of same-day craniotomy programs. Moreover, the cost benefits of same-day craniotomy were reaffirmed. SUMMARY: Same- day discharge after craniotomy is feasible, safe and continues to expand to a wider variety of procedures, in new institutions and countries. There are several benefits to ambulatory surgery. Well-established protocols for perioperative management are essential to the success of early discharge programs. With continued research, these protocols can be refined and implemented in more institutions globally, ultimately to provide better, more efficient care for neurosurgical patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in AnaesthesiologySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207