MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230433466 · doi:10.21037/ales.2019.01.07

Ventral hernia and obesity: is there a consensus?

2019· article· en· W4230433466 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

VenueAnnals of Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHernia repair and management
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHerniaObesityGeneral surgeryComplicationIncisional herniaAbdominal wallLife expectancySurgeryNatural historyMorbid obesityDilemmaIntensive care medicineWeight lossInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The prevalence of obesity worldwide is increasing. With it, obesity associated co-morbidities are also on the rise. On such complication concerning the abdominal wall is “hernia”. Similarly, annually a high volume of abdominal laparotomies are performed worldwide, especially in young. Rising life expectancy, increasing prevalence of obesity and comorbidities like diabetes has ultimately led to an increasing prevalence of incisional hernias. When combined together, general surgeons and bariatric surgeons are faced with a new dilemma: an obese patient with an abdominal wall hernia. This review briefly summarizes the impact of obesity on the natural history of hernia, its associated complication, management strategies and options.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.254 · 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