Mechanical Bowel Obstruction and Related Risk Factors on Morbidity and Mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mechanical bowel obstruction is a common emergency problem resulting in high morbidity and mortality. In this study, we aimed to investigate the clinical presentation and outcome of the patients who underwent surgery due to mechanical bowel obstruction, as well as the effective risk factors on morbidity and mortality. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2010, 148 patients who underwent surgery with a diagnosis of MBO were evaluated retrospectively. Results: The common cause of mechanical bowel obstruction was benign diseases (79.1%), such as adhesions (48.6%) and sigmoid torsion (15.5%), while 20% of causes were malignancies, like colorectal (16.2%) and small bowel tumors (3.4%). The 56.8% of the patients underwent surgery in the first 24 hours. Intra-operatively, severe ischemic features in the bowel were determined in 48% of the patients, while perforation in 2.7% and necrosis in 7.4%. Resection procedures were performed in 60.1%, while 37.8% of the patients underwent adhesiolysis. Morbidity rate was 41.9%, and 12.8% of the patients had died. While age, comorbidity, etiology, admission time and respiratory complications were the risk factors for mortality, age, comorbidities, admission time, and surgical procedures were effective on morbidity. Independent risk factors were comorbidity and admission time for morbidity and mortality, while age for only mortality. Conclusion: Morbidity and mortality rates may be decreased with considering the etiological causes and the related risk factors of the patients, and increasing the awareness of the public about mechanical bowel obstruction. doi:10.4021/jcs19w
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".