MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Traumatic Rupture of the Urinary Bladder: Is the Suprapubic Tube Necessary?

2003· article· en· W2054785606 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Parry, Grace S. Rozycki, David V. Feliciano, Lorraine N. Tremblay, Raymond A. Cava, Zachery Voeltz, Jeffrey K Carney

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCatheterSurgeryBluntComplicationUrinary systemBladder ruptureUrinary bladderUrinary catheterizationBlunt traumaUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although surgical principles are well accepted for the treatment of an intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal rupture of the urinary bladder, the type and number of drainage catheters needed to obtain a satisfactory outcome with minimal patient morbidity have yet to be determined. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of data on injured patients with the diagnosis of an intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal rupture of the urinary bladder from penetrating or blunt trauma. RESULTS: Of the 51 patients identified, 28 were treated with suprapubic and transurethral catheters, whereas 23 received a transurethral catheter only. Complications and catheter duration times were similar regardless of type of bladder injury or drainage catheter used (p > 0.5). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that there are similar outcomes and complication rates for patients treated with suprapubic and transurethral catheters versus transurethral catheter only. Transurethral catheters alone seem effective in draining all types of bladder injuries.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations44
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207