MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083027229 · doi:10.4103/0970-0358.138978

Abdominal compartment syndrome following abdominoplasty: A case report and review

2014· article· en· W2083027229 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Izadpanah, Ali Izadpanah, Mihiran Karunanayake, Christian Petropolis, Dan Deckelbaum, Mario Luc

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Contouring and Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbdominoplastySurgeryAbdominal compartment syndromeNauseaGastric bypass surgeryAbdominal surgeryBowel obstructionComplicationAbdominal painAbdomenGeneral surgeryPlastic surgeryGastric bypassWeight lossInternal medicineObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abdominoplasty is among the most commonly performed aesthetic procedures in plastic surgery. Despite high complication rate, abdominal contouring procedures are expected to rise in popularity with the advent of bariatric surgery. Patients with a history of gastric bypass surgery have an elevated incidence of small bowel obstruction from internal herniation, which is associated with non-specific upper abdominal pain, nausea, and a decrease in appetite. Internal hernias, when subjected to elevated intra-abdominal pressures, have a high-risk of developing ischemic bowel. We present a case report of patient with previous laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass who developed acute ischemic bowel leading to abdominal compartment syndrome following abdominoplasty. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case in the literature. We herein emphasise on the subtle symptoms and signs that warrant further investigations in prospective patients for an abdominal contouring procedure with a prior history of gastric bypass surgery.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicBody Contouring and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207