2024 Canadian Surgery Forum01 The green thumb of endoscopy: switching from sterile water to tap water02 Comparing wait times for common elective general surgery procedures between immigrants and non-immigrants in British Columbia03 Dr. GPT will see you now: the ability of large language models to provide colorectal cancer screening recommendations04 Surgeon- and hospital-level variation in wait times for scheduled non-urgent surgery in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional population-based study05 Multicentre pan-Canadian experience of per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for the treatment of achalasia: a retrospective study06 Safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid use in general surgery patients: a sub-study of the POISE-3 randomized controlled trial07 Emergency department presentation following ERCP in Nova Scotia: high rebound rates related to progressive pancreaticobiliary pathologies demonstrates the need for alternative acute care strategies08 Maintaining rural and remote surgical skills: a needs assessment survey for a surgical virtual education platform09 Opioid prescribing following same-day general surgery procedures: a province-wide analysis10 Canadian survey of surgeons’ knowledge and attitudes toward opportunistic salpingectomy during nongynecologic surgery11 Postoperative outcomes following revision or conversion metabolic and bariatric surgery after primary sleeve gastrectomy: a retrospective cohort analysis12 Survival outcomes in the Canadian Merkel cell carcinoma population and descriptive comparison with the AJCC 8th edition staging system13 Postoperative pain is a preventable cause of early emergency department visits following appendectomy14 Testing the HoloHands model: a comprehensive holographic tutor for surgical hand ties15 Point-of-care hemoglobin accuracy in noncardiac surgery (PREMISE): a prospective diagnostic cohort study16 Enhancing access to semi-urgent cholecystectomy procedures: a retrospective observational study17 Cost savings associated with on-site surgical care in a remote Indigenous community in Northern Quebec18 Advancing health equity: unravelling disparities in preoperative health care utilization among immigrants undergoing elective surgery19 Surgical wait times in British Columbia: more of the same is not enough20 Clinical artificial intelligence: customizing a large language model to generate SAGES guideline recommendations for the surgical management of GERD01 The impact of preoperative nutritional intervention on postoperative morbidity among sarcopenic patients undergoing esophagectomy: a prospective cohort study02 ctDNA Lung DETECT: assessing ctDNA prospectively in resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancers03 Same-day discharge after pulmonary wedge resection: a cost–utility analysis04 Understanding global perspectives in diaphragmatic reconstruction during hiatal hernia repair by geography, specialty training, and experience05 An evaluation of 986 consecutive endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration procedures for reflex biomarker testing for lung cancer: a single-centre retrospective review06 Endoscopic ultrasound-guided core needle biopsies (EUS-CNB): safe and effective approach for diagnosing lymphoma in patients with mediastinal lymphadenopathy07 Three-dimensional lung modelling improves the completion rate of segmental resection01 Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis02 Development of the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Impact and Consequences Assessment Tool (LARS ICAT)03 Postoperative recovery of colorectal patients enhanced with dexmedetomidine (PReCEDex): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials04 Failure to rescue in colorectal surgery: a systematic review05 Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery for patients with obesity: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis06 Laparoscopically assisted colonoscopic polypectomy: a 7-year retrospective analysis07 Preoperative very-low-energy diets for patients with obesity undergoing intra-abdominal colorectal surgery: a single-centre retrospective cohort study (RetroPREPARE)08 Fragility of statistically significant outcomes in randomized controlled trials focused on surgical management of anal fissures: a systematic review09 The impact of preoperative stoma education on postoperative outcomes for patients with new stomas after colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis10 The impact of obesity on postoperative outcomes following surgery for colorectal cancer: analysis of the national inpatient sample 2015–201911 The association between preoperative anemia and health care resource use and outcomes after colorectal surgery: a population-based cohort study12 Effect of Kono-S anastomosis on reducing postoperative recurrence rates in Crohn disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis13 Assessing radiologic pathologic concordance in direct to surgery rectal cancer patients14 A comparison of hi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The use of sterile water in endoscopy is a com mon practice that is not based on available evidence.Literature suggests that the use of tap water in endoscopy is safe and appro priate, even for advanced procedures.We examined the financial and environmental cost savings at our institution after switching from using sterile water to tap water for endoscopy.Methods: We conducted a comparative analysis between a period of sterile water irrigation use (October 2022) in endoscopy to an equiva lent period of tap water irrigation use (October 2023).Advanced and invasive procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography continued to utilize sterile water during both study periods.Our analysis focused on the financial and environ mental impact of switching to tap water in our endoscopy unit.Results: The introduction of tap water led to a significant reduction in sterile water usage, from 336 to 192 bottles per month, saving $310.70 per month.Despite the decrease in sterile water usage, the number of procedures remained relatively stable, with 922 procedures during the sterile water phase com pared to 905 procedures during the tap water phase.The cost of irrigation water per procedure decreased from $0.80 to $0.47, representing a 59% cost reduction.Additionally, transitioning to tap water eliminated the need for 144 bottles per month, result ing in a monthly waste reduction of 17.45 kg from a single endoscopy unit.The estimated carbon footprint from produc tion alone was 54.18 kg CO 2 e, excluding sterilization, transpor tation, or waste management processes.Conclusion: Use of tap water in endoscopy has been proven to be safe and effective.An additional benefit is the financial and environmental cost savings of decreasing sterile water use.Implementation of tap water pro tocols in endoscopy units can be a simple step toward increasing sustainability in endoscopy. Comparing wait times for common elective general surgery procedures between immigrants and non-immigrants in British Columbia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".