Trauma hepático: uma experiência de 21 anos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the epidemiological aspects, behavior, morbidity and treatment outcomes for liver trauma. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients over 13 years of age admitted to a university hospital from 1990 to 2010, submitted to surgery or nonoperative management (NOM). RESULTS: 748 patients were admitted with liver trauma. The most common mechanism of injury was penetrating trauma (461 cases, 61.6%), blunt trauma occurring in 287 patients (38.4%). According to the degree of liver injury (AAST-OIS) in blunt trauma we predominantly observed Grades I and II and in penetrating trauma, Grade III. NOM was performed in 25.7% of patients with blunt injury. As for surgical procedures, suturing was performed more frequently (41.2%). The liver-related morbidity was 16.7%. The survival rate for patients with liver trauma was 73.5% for blunt and 84.2% for penetrating trauma. Mortality in complex trauma was 45.9%. CONCLUSION: trauma remains more common in younger populations and in males. There was a reduction of penetrating liver trauma. NOM proved safe and effective, and often has been used to treat patients with penetrating liver trauma. Morbidity was high and mortality was higher in victims of blunt trauma and complex liver injuries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".