Amended Classification of the Open Abdomen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2009, a classification system for the open abdomen was introduced. The aim of such a classification is to aid the (1) description of the patient's clinical course; (2) standardization of clinical guidelines for guiding open abdomen management; and (3) facilitation of comparisons between studies and heterogeneous patient populations, thus serving as an aid in clinical research. METHODS: As part of the revision of the definitions and clinical guidelines performed by the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome, this 2009 classification system was amended following a review of experiences in teaching and research and published as part of updated consensus statements and clinical practice guidelines in 2013. Among 29 articles citing the 2009 classification system, nine were cohort studies. They were reviewed as part of the classification revision process. A total of 542 patients (mean: 60, range: 9-160) had been classified. Two problems with the previous classification system were identified: the definition of enteroatmospheric fistulae, and that an enteroatmospheric fistula was graded less severe than a frozen abdomen. RESULTS: The following amended classification was proposed: Grade 1, without adherence between bowel and abdominal wall or fixity of the abdominal wall (lateralization), subdivided as follows: 1A, clean; 1B, contaminated; and 1C, with enteric leak. An enteric leak controlled by closure, exteriorization into a stoma, or a permanent enterocutaneous fistula is considered clean. Grade 2, developing fixation, subdivided as follows: 2A, clean; 2B, contaminated; and 2C, with enteric leak. Grade 3, frozen abdomen, subdivided as follows: 3A clean and 3B contaminated. Grade 4, an established enteroatmospheric fistula, is defined as a permanent enteric leak into the open abdomen, associated with granulation tissue. CONCLUSIONS: The authors believe that, with these changes, the requirements on a functional and dynamic classification system, useful in both research and training, will be fulfilled. We encourage future investigators to apply the system and report on its merits and constraints.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".