Incidence of portal vein thrombosis after laparoscopic splenectomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic splenectomy has become an important therapeutic option in the management of diverse hematologic disorders. However, the incidence of important complications, such as portal vein thrombosis, remains poorly understood. We set out to study the incidence of this complication over a 14-month period. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent laparoscopic splenectomy between July 2001 and April 2002 at McMaster University Medical Centre in Hamilton, Ont., were approached postoperatively and offered duplex ultrasonography of the portal vein to look for thrombosis. RESULTS: During the study period 17 patients underwent laparoscopic splenectomy. Two patients declined to participate, and in 1 patient the ultrasonography was technically inadequate. Of the 14 remaining patients, 2 (14%) were found to have portal vein thrombosis. In 1 other patient, the investigation was suggestive, but not conclusive, of a clot in the portal system. CONCLUSIONS: Portal vein thrombosis in this series was a relatively common complication of laparoscopic splenectomy. Further research is needed to confirm our findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".