RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF EXPERTS ON INTRA-ABDOMINAL HYPERTENSION AND ABDOMINAL COMPARTMENT SYNDROME
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) have been increasingly recognized in the critically ill over the past decade, and the number of published studies has exploded in recent years. Interpretation of the results and comparison of these studies is difficult, because of incomplete and inconsistent reporting of data and statistics. DESIGN: An international consensus group of multidisciplinary specialists convened at the third World Congress on Abdominal Compartment Syndrome to develop recommendations for research related to the diagnosis and management of IAH and ACS. METHODS: Prior to the conference the authors developed a blueprint for consensus definitions and treatment guidelines which were refined both during and after the conference. RESULTS: Three major types of studies were identified (measurement techniques, epidemiology, and interventions), each with different needs regarding methodology, reporting of data and statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are proposed to guide clinical research in the field of IAH and ACS.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it