MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113505970 · doi:10.1186/1752-2897-8-12

A necessary evil? Intra-abdominal hypertension complicating burn patient resuscitation

2014· article· en· W2113505970 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul B. McBeth, Kim Sass, Duncan Nickerson, Chad G. Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Trauma Management & Outcomes · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationAbdominal compartment syndromeIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort studyInjury Severity ScoreEpidemiologyEmergency medicineAnesthesiaSurgeryPoison controlInjury preventionAbdomenInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Severe burns are devastating injuries that result in considerable systemic inflammation and often require resuscitation with large volumes of fluid. The result of massive resuscitation is often raised intra-abdominal pressures leading to Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and the secondary abdominal compartment syndrome. The objective of this study is to conduct (1) a 10 year retrospective study to investigate epidemiological factors contributing to burn injuries in Alberta, (2) to characterize fluid management and incidence of IAH and ACS and (3) to review fluid resuscitation with a goal to identify optimal strategies for fluid resuscitation. DESIGN: A comprehensive 10-year retrospective review of burn injuries from 1999. OUTCOME MEASURES: Age, sex, date, mechanism of injury, location of incident, on scene vitals and GCS, type of transport to hospital and routing, ISS, presenting vitals and GCS, diagnoses, procedures, complications, hospital LOS, ICU LOS, and events surrounding the injury. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy five patients (79.4% M, 20.6% F) were identified as having traumatic burn injuries with a mean ISS score of 21.8 (±8.3). The mean age was 41.6 (±17.5) (range 14-94) years. Nearly half (49.7%) of patients suffered their injuries at home, 17.7% were related to industrial incidents and 14.3% were MVC related. One hundred and ten patients required ICU admission. ICU LOS 18.5 (±8.8) days. Hospital LOS 38.0 (±37.8) days. The mean extent of burn injury was 31.4 (±20.9) % TBSA. Nearly half of the patients suffered inhalational injuries (mild 12.5%, moderate 13.7%, severe 9.1%). Thirty-nine (22.2%) of patients died from their injuries. Routine IAP monitoring began in September, 2005 with 15 of 28 patients having at least two IAP measurements. The mean IAP was 16.5 (±5.7) cm H2O (range: 1-40) with an average of 58 (±97) IAP measurements per patient. Those patients with IAP monitoring had an average TBSA of 35.0 (±16.0)%, ISS of 47.5 (±7.5). The mean 48 hr fluid balance was 25.6 (±11.1)L exceeding predicted Parkland formula estimates by 86 (±32)%. CONCLUSIONS: Further evaluation of IAP monitoring is needed to further characterize IAP and fluid resuscitation in patients with burn 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Trauma Management & OutcomesSame topicAbdominal Surgery and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207