MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398783855 · doi:10.62463/surgery.66

Why do people die after surgery? A call for research action

2024· article· en· W4398783855 on OpenAlexaff
James Glasbey, Christina George, Janet Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueImpact Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDie (integrated circuit)Action (physics)Call to actionMedicinePsychologyEngineeringBusinessAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Death after surgery is largely under-recognized and poorly understood. While the intent of surgery is for benefit, a risk of death is always present. This risk is dependent upon many factors, including the type and severity of surgery, the disease requiring surgery, and patients’ physiological reserve. However, most are unaware that an estimated 4.2 million people die within 30 days of surgery each year. If surgery were categorised as a ‘cause of death’, it would be the third leading cause of death worldwide.

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)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.225
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.225
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0150.044
Open science0.0090.008
Research integrity0.0410.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.014

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImpact SurgerySame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207