MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192166135 · doi:10.1002/ncp.10751

From clinical guidelines to practice: The nutrition elements for enhancing recovery after colorectal surgery

2021· review· en· W3192166135 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition in Clinical Practice · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Colorectal surgeryBridge (graph theory)Clinical PracticeNursingProcess managementIntensive care medicineSurgeryAlternative medicinePathologyAbdominal surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Care System improves patient outcomes. The ERAS Protocol describes multimodal, evidence-based processes that are bundled into >20 care elements, and the ERAS Implementation Program provides strategies to guide the successful adoption of the care elements. Although formal training is essential to implement ERAS correctly, with this article we aim to bridge the gap between the nutritionally relevant care elements of the protocol and their implementation for colorectal surgery. This article also describes how dietitians can support optimal patient outcomes by playing an active role in implementing, monitoring, and evaluating ERAS practices.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.316
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.316
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.332 · 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