MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097882686

SOGC CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE Laparoscopic Entry: A Review of Techniques, Technologies, and Complications

2015· article· en· W7097882686 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVeress needleGuidelinePneumoperitoneumClinical PracticeLaparoscopyLaparoscopic surgeryTask forceLaparoscopes
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To provide clinical direction, based on the best evidence available, on laparoscopic entry techniques and technologies and their associated complications. Options: The laparoscopic entry techniques and technologies reviewed in formulating this guideline include the classic pneumoperitoneum (Veress/trocar), the open (Hasson), the direct trocar insertion, the use of disposable shielded trocars, radially expanding trocars, and visual entry systems. Outcomes: Implementation of this guideline should optimize the decision-making process in choosing a particular technique to enter the abdomen during laparoscopy. Evidence: English-language articles from Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database published before the end of September 2005 were searched, using the key words laparoscopic entry, laparoscopy access, pneumoperitoneum, Veress needle, open (Hasson), direct trocar, visual entry, shielded trocars, radially expanded trocars, and laparoscopic complications. Values: The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on the

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0180.020
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0070.002
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesFrench-language works237,207