MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560952688 · doi:10.1089/sur.2016.184

Age and Its Impact on Outcomes with Intra-Abdominal Infection

2016· article· en· W2560952688 on OpenAlexaff
Drew Farmer, Jeffrey M. Tessier, James M. Sanders, Robert G. Sawyer, Ori D. Rotstein, E. Patchen Dellinger, Pamela A. Lipsett, Joseph Cuschieri, Preston R. Miller, Charles H. Cook, Christopher A. Guidry, Reza Askari, Billy J. Moore, Therèse M. Duane

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Infections · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Age has been shown to play a significant role in the etiology of complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs), but the correlation between age and outcomes after therapy was not investigated in the Study to Optimize Peritoneal Infection Therapy (STOP-IT) trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained by post hoc analysis of the STOP-IT trial database. Patients were stratified by age <65 or ≥65 years. Primary outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI), recurrent IAI (recIAI), and death. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: There were 398 subjects <65 and 120 ≥ 65 years. Overall baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. The site of infection was similar between groups except: Colon or rectum (48.3% vs. 29.9%, p = 0.0002) and biliary tree (16.7% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.02), which were more common in the older group, whereas small intestine (6.7% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.008) and appendix (4.2% vs.17.1%, p = 0.0004) were more common in the younger group. Among the primary outcomes, only death was significantly different between the age groups and was more prevalent in the ≥65 years group (4 [3.3%] vs. 1 [0.3%], p = 0.01). Surgical site infection (9.2% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.50), recIAI (15.8% vs. 14.4%, p = 0.69), and a composite outcome (26.7% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.14) were statistically similar between the age groups, and this remained true when controlling for other co-variables. Multivariable analyses did not reveal age as an independent predictor of the composite or individual outcomes. CONCLUSION: Patients with a more advanced age demonstrated variable sources of infection relative to the younger cohort, yet received similar treatments. Patient age was not an independent predictor of the undesired cIAI outcomes. These findings suggest that advanced age itself does not play a significant role in predicting these adverse outcomes for cIAIs and does not necessitate an altered treatment tactic.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical InfectionsSame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207