MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315698618 · doi:10.3748/wjg.v22.i10.3062

Rupture of sigmoid colon caused by compressed air

2016· review· en· W2315698618 on OpenAlexaff
Wanbin Yin, Jilin Hu, Yuan Gao, Xianxiang Zhang, Mao-shen Zhang, Guangwei Liu, Yun Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastroenterology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverticular Disease and Complications
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
FundersQingdao University
KeywordsMedicinePneumoperitoneumLaparotomySigmoid colonAbdomenSurgeryIleostomyPerforationCompressed airAbdominal painLaparoscopyRectum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compressed air has been generally used since the beginning of the 20(th) century for various applications. However, rupture of the colon caused by compressed air is uncommon. We report a case of pneumatic rupture of the sigmoid colon. The patient was admitted to the emergency room complaining of abdominal pain and distention. His colleague triggered a compressed air nozzle against his anus as a practical joke 2 h previously. On arrival, his pulse rate was 126 beats/min, respiratory rate was 42 breaths/min and blood pressure was 86/54 mmHg. Physical examination revealed peritoneal irritation and the abdomen was markedly distended. Computed tomography of the abdomen showed a large volume of air in the abdominal cavity. Peritoneocentesis was performed to relieve the tension pneumoperitoneum. Emergency laparotomy was done after controlling shock. Laparotomy revealed a 2-cm perforation in the sigmoid colon. The perforation was sutured and temporary ileostomy was performed as well as thorough drainage and irrigation of the abdominopelvic cavity. Reversal of ileostomy was performed successfully after 3 mo. Follow-up was uneventful. We also present a brief literature review.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of GastroenterologySame topicDiverticular Disease and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207