Open abdomen with negative pressure device vs primary abdominal closure for the management of surgical abdominal sepsis: a retrospective review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Open abdomen with temporary abdominal closure remains a controversial management strategy for surgical abdominal sepsis compared with primary abdominal closure (PAC) and on-demand laparotomy. The primary objective was to compare mortality between PAC and open abdomen with vacuum assisted closure (VAC). METHODS: Retrospective review of a tertiary center intensive care unit database (2006 to 2010) including suspected/diagnosed severe abdominal sepsis/septic shock requiring source control laparotomy. Groups were categorized according to closure method at index source control laparotomy. APACHE-IV was used as a measure of disease severity. RESULTS: Of 211 patients, 75 PAC and 136 VAC cases were included. Controlling for disease severity, adjusted odds ratio of mortality for VAC was .41 95% confidence interval (.21, .81; P = .01) compared with PAC. PAC and VAC APACHE-1V predicted mortality rate were both 45%. VAC mortality was lower than PAC (22.8% vs 38.6%; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: Open abdomen with VAC is associated with significantly improved survival compared with PAC in abdominal sepsis requiring laparotomy.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it