MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965209601 · doi:10.1080/14767050802042175

The diagnosis and management of post-cesarean section hemorrhagic shock

2008· article· en· W1965209601 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio Malvası, Andrea Tinelli, Carlo Cavallotti, Dan Farine

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemorrhagic shockSection (typography)MedicineShock (circulatory)Internal medicineComputer scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The cesarean section (CS) is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide, performed by suturing or not suturing the visceral peritoneum. In the case of not suturing the visceral peritoneum, pathological fluid collections can arise in this space and spill into the large peritoneal cavity, creating a hemoperitoneum. METHODS: In this retrospective study we evaluated 3890 repeat and first CS, performed under spinal or combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, over the last 10 years. In all the CS evaluated, we excluded those performed with open parietal peritoneum and the classical CS by closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum. RESULTS: Three important early puerperal post-CS complications with hypovolemic shock signs were detected, urgently treated by two relaparotomies and a laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific literature reports the early benefit of not suturing the visceral peritoneum during CS, but in rare cases, early and dangerous complications occur. The post-CS hemoperitoneum must be detected immediately by transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasonography, and must be treated by needle aspiration in slight cases and by laparoscopy or laparotomy in heavy cases, with drainage and accurate hemostasis.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal MedicineSame topicAbdominal Surgery and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207