A Randomized Prospective Assessment of Safety and Effectiveness of Instillation of Tissue Plasminogen Activator in the Management of Intra-Abdominal Abscesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Catheter drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses has shown to be effective in reducing sepsis and mortality. We sought to determine whether or not tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), a fibrinolytic, is safe and facilitates resolution when used as an adjunct during drainage of intra-abdo-minal abscesses. Methods: A single-blinded, prospective, multi-center, randomized control trial was performed on patients presenting with image confirmed abscesses; the first group (n = 24) received catheter-directed tPA of their abscess and the second group (n = 23) had their abscess drained without tPA instillation. Variables examined included patient age, gender, location of the abscess, pre-drainage volumes and size of catheters inserted. Baseline variables were compared between tPA and non-tPA groups using a chi-square test for discrete variables and a Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and for the outcome of drainage volume. Results: Technical success of the drainage procedures was 100% for both groups. The tPA group had higher volume of drainage over the first three days (median for total after 3 days: without tPA: 300 mL vs. with tPA: 322 mL, p = 0.42). At days 4 to 7 the tPA group had significant greater drainage volume than did the non-tPA patient group, 150 mL vs. 110 mL (p = 0.046). The number of days to resume diet was also assessed in the 20 patients where this datum was available, 11 tPA and 9 non-tPA with no difference between groups. No adverse events, such as localized or systemic bleeding were encountered. Conclusion: Instillation of tPA into catheter directed intra-abdominal abscesses was safe, easy to perform and was associated with significantly improved drainage of abscesses from days 4 -7.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".