MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144000551 · doi:10.4021/jmc.v4i11.1348

A Successful Repair of Incarcerated and Eviscerated Hernia With Polypropylene Mesh

2013· article· en· W2144000551 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seçkin Akküçük, Akın Aydoğan, İlhan Paltacı, Aydin Kaplan, Mustafa Uğur

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHernia repair and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEvisceration (ophthalmology)SurgeryHerniaAbdominal wallIncisional herniaHernia repairGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to present a case of eviscerated and incarcerated recurrent incisional hernia successfully repaired with polypropylene mesh. A 65-year-old woman with recurrent incarcerated incisional hernia with spontaneous evisceration was admitted to our emergency clinic. She had undergone herniorrhaphy, segmental ileal resection, end-to-end anastomosis, primary abdominal wall repair, and polypropylene mesh repair. No intraoperative or postoperative complication occurred. Even though incisional hernia is frequent, spontaneous rupture and evisceration in these cases are very unusual. The most seen cause of this situation is tense ascites due to chronic liver disease. Eviscerated and incarcerated incisional hernias are contaminated cases, and use of prostethic mesh for hernia repair is still controversial. Washing the bowel with saline before replacing it into the abdomen and application of antibiotics during surgery and for 2-4 days in postoperative period can prevent infectious complications after mesh repair. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jmc1348w

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)0.004
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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicHernia repair and managementFrench-language works237,207