MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Traumatic Abdominal Wall Hernia: Epidemiology and Clinical Implications

2006· article· en· W2040956329 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHernia repair and management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreVector InstituteSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaparotomyMedicineSurgeryOccultHerniaGeneral surgeryLaparoscopyBowel resectionTrauma centerRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traumatic abdominal wall hernias (TAWHs) are uncommon, and it remains controversial whether such patients require urgent laparotomy. As such, this study was undertaken to assess the clinical sequelae of operative versus nonoperative management of TAWH, and whether certain patient or injury characteristics are predictive of the need for early surgery. METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients presenting acutely with a TAWH at a Regional Trauma Center from January 2000 to December 2004. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were identified (age 39 +/- 12 years; Injury Severity Score 31 +/- 13). The most frequent mechanism of injury was motor vehicle collision (MVC; 24 cases), followed by motorcycle collision (6) and falls (4). The diagnosis of a TAWH was made primarily by computed tomography scan. Overall, 19 patients underwent urgent laparotomy or laparoscopy (56%) and 15 patients required bowel resection (44%). TAWH secondary to a MVC more frequently required urgent laparotomy and bowel resection than other mechanisms (p < 0.05). All three patients with clinically apparent anterior TAWH had intra-abdominal injuries and required urgent laparotomy. Only eight patients (24%) had their TAWH repaired acutely. At follow-up, two patients managed nonoperatively had symptomatic hernias, and three patients that had had an early repair had developed recurrent hernias. CONCLUSIONS: First, the mechanism of injury should be considered when deciding if a patient with a TAWH needs an urgent laparotomy. Clinically apparent anterior TAWHs appear to have a high rate of associated injuries requiring urgent laparotomy. Finally, occult TAWHs diagnosed only by computed tomography may not require urgent laparotomy or hernia repair.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.355 · 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