MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238956738 · doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7500.1155-a

Hit parade

2005· article· en· W4238956738 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParadeComputer scienceWorld Wide WebData scienceArtArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgical volume–outcome relationships are well established but have not been studied in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) undergoing surgical lung biopsy (SLB). Our study objective was to determine if hospital SLB volume is associated with post-operative mortality in patients with ILD. A cohort study using administrative, population-based data from Ontario, Canada was performed in adults with ILD who underwent a SLB between 2001 and 2014. The association between yearly hospital SLB volume and 30-day post-operative mortality was assessed using multilevel logistic regression modelling. 3057 surgical lung biopsies for ILD were performed during the study period with a median (interquartile range) yearly hospital volume of 73 (34–143) procedures. 30-day mortality was 7.1%, 20.2% and 1.9% in overall, nonelective and elective patients, respectively. Higher yearly hospital SLB volume was associated with lower odds of 30-day post-operative mortality after adjusting for patient characteristics (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73–0.97; p=0.02), with the association appearing stronger for nonelective <i>versus</i> elective procedures (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69–1.02; p=0.08 <i>versus</i> OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.74–1.18; p=0.57). Higher yearly hospital SLB volume was associated with lower post-operative mortality in patients with ILD, with the association appearing to be mainly driven by nonelective cases. SLB mortality was significantly higher for nonelective cases.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.005

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.331 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealthcare Systems and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207