Efficacy and Safety of Trans-Arterial Splenic Embolization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: As experience with the long-term complications of the asplenic state has accumulated, greater interest and effort has focused on splenic preservation techniques. Trans-arterial splenic embolization has emerged as a relatively safe and efficacious procedure in dealing with traumatic splenic injuries. The outcomes following this procedure, in terms of efficacy, complications, and long-term splenic function, have yet to be clearly defined. The purpose of this study was to document these outcomes in patients undergoing trans-arterial splenic embolization at a single tertiary care center. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients that underwent trans-arterial splenic embolization at the University of Alberta Hospital was undertaken. Various patient characteristics and procedure details were recorded. Patient outcomes, in terms of infections, procedural failures, and peripheral blood smear results, were also recorded. Univariate analysis was done to determine the correlation of various patient and procedure variables with failure, infection, splenic infarction, and peripheral blood smear (PBS) results. Results: A total of 19 patients underwent trans-arterial splenic embolization at the University of Alberta Hospital from January 2005 to January 2009. No variables correlated in a statistically significant manner to hemorrhage, infection, repeat embolization, splenic infarction, or abnormal PBS. Our results revealed that transarterial splenic embolization does not lead to long-term loss of splenic function. Conclusions: Trans-arterial splenic embolization is a safe and effective procedure that does not lead to longterm compromise of splenic function. Complications and failures of this procedure, however, cannot be predicted based on either patient or procedure characteristics examined in this study. [Arch Clin Exp Surg 2012; 1(1.000): 22-26]
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".