Cough Impairment and Risk of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications After Open Upper Abdominal Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cough impairment is often described as part of the pathophysiological basis of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). However, there have been few studies examining cough effectiveness and its relationship with PPCs following open upper abdominal surgery. The goal of this study was to estimate (1) changes in cough efficacy after upper abdominal surgery through the assessment of peak cough flow and (2) the extent to which cough impairment is associated with postoperative pain, FVC, and risk of PPCs. METHODS: This prospective cohort study assessed 101 subjects (45% male, 56 ± 16 y old) admitted for elective upper abdominal surgery. Measurements of peak cough flow and FVC were performed on the day before surgery and repeated on postoperative days 1, 3, and 5. PPCs were assessed daily by a pulmonologist blinded to the cough measurement results. RESULTS: Peak cough flow dropped to 54% of the preoperative value on postoperative day 1 and gradually increased on postoperative days 3 (65%) and 5 (72%) (P < .05). On all postoperative days, peak cough flow was strongly correlated with FVC (P < .001) and weakly correlated with pain (P = .006). Six subjects (6%) developed PPCs. The association between peak cough flow and risk of PPCs was not statistically significant (unadjusted odds ratio of 0.80, 95% CI 0.45-1.40, P = .44; adjusted odds ratio of 0.66, 95% CI 0.32-1.38, P = .41). CONCLUSIONS: Cough effectiveness is impaired after upper abdominal surgery. Postoperative restrictive lung dysfunction seems to be associated with this impairment. There is no significant association between peak cough flow and PPCs; however, cough impairment might result in clinically important consequences in a high-risk population.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".