MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414032745 · doi:10.1016/j.jpra.2025.09.002

Ethical considerations of complex reconstructions in resource poor countries

2025· article· en· W4414032745 on OpenAlexaff
Oluwakemi Ayoade, Abdulrasheed Ibrahim, Chihena H. Banda, Barbara Jemec

Bibliographic record

VenueJPRAS Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsQueensway-Carleton Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnvironmental ethicsPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a need for complex plastic surgery reconstructive work in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This paper will discuss the ethical considerations when offering this service in LMICs, from the local and the visiting surgeon's perspective, their patients and a holistic global surgery perspective. The basic principles of clinical ethics are autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice, and are the foundation for the structure of this paper.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.026
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0080.009
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJPRAS OpenSame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207