MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W333066331 · doi:10.1177/229255030501300405

A Review of 2975 Consecutive Operations By One Surgeon in An Accredited Outpatient Plastic Surgicentre: A Canadian Experience

2005· review· en· W333066331 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Leslie R. Chasmar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSoft tissue tumor case studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitEveningPULMONARY EMBOLUSPneumothoraxAccreditationSurgeryGeneral surgeryMedical emergencyEmergency medicinePulmonary embolismIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper constitutes a retrospective review of 2975 consecutive operations performed by the author, one of the three owners of the Saskatoon Plastic Surgicentre. The unit opened in 1987; therefore, the study spans 17 years. Patients are not kept overnight, and the Surgicentre is approved and equipped as a level C facility for general anesthesia. Only patients who score 1 or 2 according to the American Association of Anesthesiologists are treated. Only certified anesthesiologists are used. Of the patients with postoperative complications, only two required transfer to a hospital. One developed a pneumothorax, which was treated on arrival at the intensive care unit with no sequelae. The other collapsed following facelift surgery. She was transferred to University of Saskatchewan hospital and died later that evening with a massive pulmonary embolus. In a properly established outpatient centre, a large number of patients can be safely treated with very few complications. However, despite placing patient safety as the first consideration and adhering strictly to the highest standards, death can occur.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicSoft tissue tumor case studiesFrench-language works237,207