Management and outcomes of small bowel obstruction in older adult patients: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this research was to examine the morbidity, mortality and rate of recurrent bowel obstruction associated with the treatment of small bowel obstruction (SBO) in older adults. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled all patients 70 years or older with an SBO who were admitted to a tertiary care teaching centre between Jul. 1, 2011, and Sept. 30, 2012. Data regarding presentation, investigations, treatment and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Of the 104 patients admitted with an SBO, 49% were managed nonoperatively and 51% underwent surgery. Patients who underwent surgery experienced more complications (64% v. 27%, p = 0.002) and stayed in hospital longer (10 v. 3 d, p < 0.001) than patients managed nonoperatively. Nonoperative management was associated with a high rate of recurrent SBO: 31% after a median follow-up of 17 months. Of the patients managed operatively, 60% underwent immediate surgery and 40% underwent surgery after attempted nonoperative management. Patients in whom nonoperative management failed underwent surgery after a median of 2 days, and 89% underwent surgery within 5 days. The rate of bowel resection was high (29%) among those who underwent delayed surgery. Surgery after failed nonoperative management was associated with a mortality of 14% versus 3% for those who underwent immediate surgery; however, this difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that some elderly patients with SBO may be waiting too long for surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".