MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6902266917 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.7577039

Additional file 1: of The application of barbed suture during the partial nephrectomy may modify perioperative results: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· article· en· W6902266917 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemostasis and retained surgical items
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBarbed suturePerioperativeNephrectomySubgroup analysisBlood lossBlood transfusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Figure S1. A forest plot of sensitivity analysis of warm ischemia time with or without barbed suture. Figure S2. A forest plot of sensitivity analysis of Estimate blood loss with or without barbed suture. Figure S3. A forest plot of subgroup analysis of perioperative blood transfusion with or without barbed suture. Figure S4. A forest plot of subgroup analysis of postoperative complications with or without barbed suture. Table S1. Quality assessment of studies in the meta-analysis based on Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). (DOCX 92 kb)

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7330.024

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicHemostasis and retained surgical itemsFrench-language works237,207