MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074243457 · doi:10.1186/2110-5820-2-s1-s5

Intra-abdominal pressure, intra-abdominal hypertension, and pregnancy: a review

2012· review· en· W2074243457 on OpenAlexaff
Rosaleen Chun

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Intensive Care · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbdominal compartment syndromeMedicineIntensive care medicineAnesthesiologyPregnancyObstetricsEclampsiaHypertension in PregnancyPreeclampsiaAbdomenSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last several decades have seen many advances in the recognition and prevention of the abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and its precursor, intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH). There has also been a relative explosion of knowledge in the critical care, trauma, and surgical populations, and the inception of a society dedicated to its understanding, the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS). However, there has been almost no recognition or appreciation of the potential presence, influence, and management of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), IAH, and ACS in pregnancy. This review highlights the importance and relevance of IAP in the critically ill parturient, the current lack of normative IAP values in pregnancy today, along with a review of the potential relationship between IAH and maternal diseases such as preeclampsia-eclampsia and its potential impact on fetal development. Finally, current IAP measurement guidelines are questioned, as they do not take into account the gravid uterus and its mechanical impact on intra-vesicular pressure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations52
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Intensive CareSame topicAbdominal Surgery and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207