Intraabdominal Hypertension and the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome in Burn Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe burns represent a devastating injury that induces profound systemic inflammation requiring large volumes of resuscitative fluids. The consequent massive swelling and peritoneal ascites raises intraabdominal pressures (IAP) to supraphysiologic levels commensurate with intraabdominal hypertension (IAH) and with the abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) if consistently associated with IAP >20 mmHg and associated with new organ failure. Severe burn injuries are an example of the secondary ACS (secondary ACS), wherein there has been no primary inciting intraperitoneal injury, yet severe IAH/ACS develops, setting the stage for progressive multiorgan dysfunction. These definitions along with practice management guidelines have recently been promulgated by the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS) in an effort to standardize terminology and communication regarding IAH/ACS in critical care. It is currently unknown whether these syndromes are iatrogenic consequences of excessive or poorly managed fluid resuscitation or unavoidable sequelae of the primary injury. It occurs frequently with burns of >60% body surface area, especially with associated inhalational injury, delayed resuscitation, and abdominal wall injuries. IAH/ACS is often a hyperacute phenomenon that occurs within the first hours of admission and thereafter with any complication requiring aggressive fluid resuscitation. Despite a number of noninvasive management strategies, interventions such as percutaneous peritoneal drainage and, ultimately, decompressive laparotomy are often required once the ACS is established. Whether novel resuscitation strategies can avoid or minimize IAH/ACS is unproven at present and requires further study. Truly understanding postburn ACS may require further insights into the basic mechanisms of injury and resuscitation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".