MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Frequency and Predictors of Tonsil Surgery: A Systematic Review of Evidence

2020· review· en· W4206393425 on OpenAlexaff
Kaveh Kayvani, Otto Sánchez, Brenda Gamble, Samah Mohammed, Caroline Barakat

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Health Science · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTonsillectomyMedicineTonsilIncidence (geometry)Socioeconomic statusSystematic reviewAdenoidectomyPopulationCochrane LibrarySurgeryMeta-analysisMEDLINEEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy are common procedures, performed typically on children. Evidence suggests that these procedures may be associated with health conditions, as well as with demographic, socioeconomic, and environmental factors. This review examines worldwide evidence related to the frequency and predictors of tonsil surgery for all age groups. Using PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Cochrane, a systematic review was conducted which retrieved 11 relevant articles. This review suggests that tonsil surgery is associated with age, geographical region of residence, and race. Further studies to evaluate factors associated with tonsil surgery will provide more information regarding the frequency of tonsil surgery, as well as the disparities in incidence of the surgery among different population groups.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Health ScienceSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207