MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250988143 · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.07.194

The Lymph Node Yield of Neck Dissections – Is There A Difference Between Consultant Surgeons and Specialist Registrars?

2010· article· en· W4250988143 on OpenAlexaff
Pouya Youssefi, Charles Giddings, Furrat Amen, P. Rhys‐Evans, Peter Clarke, Cyrus Kerawala

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeneral surgeryYield (engineering)Lymph nodeInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To assess adherence to previously published guidelines in acoustic neuroma screening.Acoustic neuromas commonly present with asymmetrical sensorineural hearing loss.Strict criteria for asymmetry have been developed to appropriately and cost-effectively scan (MRI) for this tumour.Setting: Otolaryngology department of a teaching hospital with a tertiary referral lateral skull base practice.Method: Review of 100 patients in whom MRI scans had been requested for asymmetrical sensorineural hearing loss was undertaken.Their audiograms were compared with guidelines giving specific audiometric criteria for scanning previously published by our department 6 years previously.Results: whilst the protocol was adhered to in many cases, there was a significant number in which scans were inappropriately requested, as the asymmetry did not meet the expected audiometric criteria.This may be due to frequent turnover of junior staff, which has increased in recent years.Conclusion: A re-education programme was undertaken and new staff will be made aware of the guidelines at their departmental induction.Appropriate requests for MRI scans will have cost savings and prevent unnecessary patient anxiety.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of SurgerySame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207