MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482661501

Is clinical examination an accurate indicator of raised intra-abdominal pressure in critically injured patients?

2000· article· en· W1482661501 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePositive predicative valuePhysical examinationPredictive valuePredictive value of testsProspective cohort studyUrinary bladderAbdominal traumaUrinary systemInternal medicineSurgeryBlunt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of elevated intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and to evaluate the accuracy of clinical abdominal examination in the assessment of IAP in the critically injured trauma patient. DESIGN: A prospective blinded study. SETTING: The medical-surgical critical care unit of a university-affiliated regional adult trauma centre. PATIENTS: Forty-two adult blunt trauma victims, who had a mean injury severity score of 36. INTERVENTIONS: Urinary bladder pressure was measured daily and classified as normal (10 mm Hg or less), elevated (more than 10 mm Hg) or significantly elevated (more than 15 mm Hg). A blinded clinical assessment of abdominal pressure was concurrently performed and recorded as elevated or normal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy and the positive and negative predictive values of the 2 interventions in identifying elevated IAP. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (50%) had an elevated IAP at some point during the study. Of the 147 bladder pressure measurements done in these 42 patients, 47 (32%) were more than 10 mm Hg and 16 (11%) were more than 15 mm Hg. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of clinical abdominal examination for identifying elevated IAP were 40%, 94%, 76%, 77% and 77%, respectively. Clinical abdominal examination had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of 56%, 87%, 35%, 94% and 84% respectively, for significantly elevated IAP. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary bladder pressure was commonly elevated among our population of critically injured adults. Compared with bladder pressure measurements, clinical abdominal assessment showed poor sensitivity and accuracy for elevated IAP. These findings suggest that more routine measurements of bladder pressure in patients at risk for intra-abdominal hypertension should be performed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.281 · 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