ANÁLISE COMPARATIVA DE TÉCNICAS ANESTÉSICAS NA CIRURGIA BARIÁTRICA: UMA META-ANÁLISE SOBRE ABORDAGENS COM USO TOTAL, POUPADOR E LIVRE DE OPIOIDES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esta meta-análise visa comparar três técnicas de uso de opioides no manejo pós-operatório de pacientes bariátricos, focando no controle da dor nas primeiras 24 horas, na redução de náuseas e vômitos e no uso de opioides. O estudo busca aprimorar as práticas anestésicas para garantir uma recuperação mais segura e eficiente. A pesquisa incluiu estudos observacionais e ensaios clínicos randomizados que abordaram o uso total, poupador e livre de opioides em pacientes bariátricos. Foram considerados desfechos como dor, náuseas e vômitos e uso de opioides nas primeiras 24 horas. Os dados foram extraídos manualmente por dois revisores, e o risco de viés foi avaliado com as ferramentas Newcastle-Ottawa e RoB-2. A análise foi realizada no software JASP, utilizando modelos de efeitos aleatórios e testes estatísticos como t de Student, ANOVA e análise post-hoc de Tukey.
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 | 0.027 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".