MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992550308 · doi:10.1136/bcr-2014-207621

Massive surgical emphysema secondary to iatrogenic tracheal laceration

2015· article· en· W1992550308 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah L Chamberlain, Habib Rahman, Gabriela Frunza, Alex Wickham

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Case Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's Hospital Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIatrogenic diseaseSurgeryIatrogenic injurySubcutaneous emphysemaGeneral surgeryPneumothorax

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 78-year-old woman was admitted for a revision total hip replacement following a failed dynamic hip screw placed emergently 4 months earlier. Anaesthetic management consisted of general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation and femoral nerve block. The patient's perioperative course was unremarkable except for a promptly recognised and corrected oesophageal intubation and a short period of breathing against a closed adjustable pressure limiting valve. In recovery, following a period of hypotension resistant to fluid therapy, she suddenly desaturated, developed severe facial and upper thoracic subcutaneous emphysema and type 2 respiratory failure. She was diagnosed with bilateral pneumothoraces, pneumomediastinum, pneumopericardium and surgical emphysema. This was treated emergently with supplemental oxygen and bilateral chest drains. A CT scan demonstrated a tracheal laceration, which was managed conservatively in the critical care unit. The patient had a tracheostomy on day 5 to treat an on-going air leak and later made a full recovery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Case ReportsSame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207