MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4246399803 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100000731

Surgery

2000· article· fr· W4246399803 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr. Woodhurst, in the situation when the patient is awake in the operating room, could you comment on the relationship of the various operating team members?Dr. W.B. Woodhurst: It is clear that the situation must be business-like.Specifically the situation must be very clear as to who is going to be in charge.We often use the anesthetists as the "intraoperative friend", and the surgeon as the "commander". Dr. J. Girvin:In the preoperative preparation for the patient, a very useful instrument is a video tape that we have prepared.The video tape shows the operative procedure and the patient can view this multiple times which will help him/her understand what to expect.In contrast to the past, we find that patients nowadays are much more inquiring and often like to have as much information as possible before their surgery. D r. W. Blume:In previous discussions, Dr. Manchanda discussed various personality types that can lead to difficulties.There appears to be at least two types of individuals that the surgical team may have difficulty in dealing with: (1) the paranoid personality that is inherently distrustful and (2) the obsessive patient.Could Dr. Girvin or Dr. Woodburst comment on how to deal with these individuals?Dr. W.B. Woodhurst: I do not have any special techniques for dealing with the patient with the paranoid personality.For the obsessive patient I am prepared to sit and talk as long as it takes to ensure that the necessary information is given.I try to resist giving "hard numbers" for complication rates and success rates. Dr. J. Girvin:The patients that I worry most about are those who do not want to have any information and just want to "get on with it".Some of these patients have not come to the realization that this is a procedure that has definite risks and the procedure may not achieve the expected positive outcome.I always make sure that I speak to one of the family members or other members of the patient's support group to make sure that at least one person close to the patient understands the potential risks and potential benefits.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.024

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→