MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399956440 · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000003133

Cochrane in CORR ®: Pharmacological Interventions for the Prevention of Bleeding in People Undergoing Elective Hip or Knee Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4399956440 on OpenAlexaffabout
Imad Kashir, Kim Madden

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConflict of interestCochrane LibraryPsychological interventionSystematic reviewOrthopedic surgeryMEDLINEMeta-analysisFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicineLawPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1Research Institute of St. Joseph's Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 2Department of Health Research Methods, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 3Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada K. Madden, McMaster University, T3219-50 Charlton Ave E, Hamilton, ON L8N 4A6, Canada, Email: [email protected] A note from the Editor-in-Chief: We are pleased to publish the next installment of "Cochrane in CORR®", our partnership between CORR®, The Cochrane Collaboration®, and McMaster University's Evidence-Based Orthopaedics Group. In this column, researchers from McMaster University and other institutions will provide expert perspective on an abstract originally published in The Cochrane Library that we think is especially important. We welcome reader feedback on our editorials as we do on all of our columns and articles; please send your comments to [email protected]. Gibbs VN, Champaneria R, Sandercock J, et al. Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of bleeding in people undergoing elective hip or knee surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Syst Database Rev. 2024;1:CD013295. The authors certify that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. The opinions expressed are those of the writers, and do not reflect the opinion or policy of CORR® or The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons®. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the Cochrane Library (http://www.thecochranelibrary.com) should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. Copyright© 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This Cochrane in CORR® column refers to the abstract available at: DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013295.pub2.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.178
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.178
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.012
Bibliometrics0.0160.024
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.003

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 head0.449
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.121 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207