MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126897207 · doi:10.1007/s10350-005-0268-5

Reduction in Adhesive Small-Bowel Obstruction by Seprafilm® Adhesion Barrier After Intestinal Resection

2005· article· en· W2126897207 on OpenAlexaff
Victor W. Fazio, Zane Cohen, James W. Fleshman, Harry van Goor, Joel J. Bauer, Bruce G. Wolff, Marvin L. Corman, Robert W. Beart, Steven D. Wexner, John R.T. Monson, Howard S. Kaufman, David E. Beck, H. Randolph Bailey, Kirk Ludwig, Michael J. Stamos, Ara Darzi, Ronald Bleday, Richard A. Dorazio, Robert D. Madoff, Lee E. Smith, Susan L. Gearhart, Keith D. Lillemoe, J. Göhl

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Colon & Rectum · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBowel obstructionSurgeryBowel resectionAbdomenAdhesionRandomized controlled trialColorectal surgeryAbdominal surgeryGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Although Seprafilm has been demonstrated to reduce adhesion formation, it is not known whether its usage would translate into a reduction in adhesive small-bowel obstruction. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, multinational, single-blind, controlled study. This report focuses on those patients who underwent intestinal resection (n = 1,701). Before closure of the abdomen, patients were randomized to receive Seprafilm or no treatment. Seprafilm was applied to adhesiogenic tissues throughout the abdomen. The incidence and type of bowel obstruction was compared between the two groups. Time to first adhesive small-bowel obstruction was compared during the course of the study by using survival analysis methods. The mean follow-up time for the occurrence of adhesive small-bowel obstruction was 3.5 years. RESULTS: There was no difference between the treatment and control group in overall rate of bowel obstruction. The incidence of adhesive small-bowel obstruction requiring reoperation was significantly lower for Seprafilm patients compared with no-treatment patients: 1.8 vs. 3.4 percent (P < 0.05). This finding represents an absolute reduction in adhesive small-bowel obstruction requiring reoperation of 1.6 percent and a relative reduction of 47 percent. In addition, a stepwise multivariate analysis indicated that the use of Seprafilm was the only predictive factor for reducing adhesive small-bowel obstruction requiring reoperation. In both groups, 50 percent of first adhesive small-bowel obstruction episodes occurred within 6 months after the initial surgery with nearly 30 percent occurring within the first 30 days. Additionally no first adhesive small-bowel obstruction events were reported in Years 4 and 5 of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The overall bowel obstruction rate was unchanged; however, adhesive small-bowel obstruction requiring reoperation was significantly reduced by the use of Seprafilm, which was the only factor that predicted this outcome.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations400
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the Colon & RectumSame topicIntestinal and Peritoneal AdhesionsFrench-language works237,207