MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214896868 · doi:10.1055/s-0042-1744008

Introducing the Nuances of Tool–Tissue Interaction Forces in Hemangioblastoma Surgery

2022· article· en· W4214896868 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulrahman Albakr, Amir Baghdadi, Rahul Singh, Sanju Lama, Garnette R. Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissection (medical)HemangioblastomaTask (project management)ResectionComputer scienceLesionSurgeryMedicineMedical physicsPsychologyEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Surgical resection of intracranial hemangioblastoma poses technical challenges which may be difficult to impart to trainees. The use of excessive force in such lesion may result in bleeding and failure of task completion. Knowledge of the ideal forces required for hemangioblastoma dissection has not been quantified nor analyzed with respect to surgical performance and education. Here, we introduce an early level data on the forces in Newton (N), observed for different surgical tasks in hemangioblastoma surgery comparing the force profiles of trainees to expert surgeons.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull BaseSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207