MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124350427 · doi:10.1148/rg.264055144

Evaluation of Bowel and Mesenteric Blunt Trauma with Multidetector CT

2006· review· en· W2124350427 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Brofman, Mostafa Atri, John M. Hanson, Leonard Grinblat, Talat Chughtai, Fred Brenneman

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Trauma and Injuries
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBluntRadiologyAbdominal traumaLaparotomyMesenteric VeinMesenterySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bowel and mesenteric injuries are detected in 5% of blunt abdominal trauma patients at laparotomy. Computed tomography (CT) has been shown to be accurate for the diagnosis of bowel and mesenteric injuries and is the diagnostic test of choice in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma in hemodynamically stable patients. Specific CT findings of bowel and mesenteric injuries include bowel wall defect, intraperitoneal and mesenteric air, intraperitoneal extraluminal contrast material, extravasation of contrast material from mesenteric vessels, and evidence of bowel infarct. Specific signs of mesenteric injury are vascular beading and abrupt termination of mesenteric vessels. Less specific signs of bowel and mesenteric injuries include focal bowel wall thickening, mesenteric fat stranding with focal fluid and hematoma, and intraperitoneal or retroperitoneal fluid. When only nonspecific signs of bowel and mesenteric injuries are seen on CT images, correlation of CT features with clinical findings is necessary. A repeat CT examination after 6-8 hours if the patient's condition is stable may help determine the significance of these nonspecific findings.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations260
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicAbdominal Trauma and InjuriesFrench-language works237,207