Intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in acute pancreatitis, hepato-pancreato-biliary operations and liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intra-abdominal hypertension, even preceding the onset of abdominal compartment syndrome, is still recognized as an adverse prognostic factor. Unfortunately, most of the current supporting evidence within the critical care environment remains observational in nature. In acute pancreatitis, an active role for intra-abdominal hypertension early in the disease process follows a strong intuitive basis, and it is corroborated by preliminary evidence from animal models. Additional studies are needed to better characterize the optimal fluid resuscitation strategy, as well as the importance of intra-abdominal hypertension as an early therapeutic target. All critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis should be considered for routine intra-abdominal pressure monitoring. The prevalence and clinical relevance of intra-abdominal hypertension after elective major abdominal operations are underestimated in the literature. Hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery and liver transplantation represent high-risk surgical subspecialties, and routine intra-abdominal hypertension risk assessment to indicate postoperative intra-abdominal pressure monitoring can be recommended. Conservative management of intra-abdominal hypertension should be promptly initiated upon diagnosis. Although abdominal catheter drainage and decompressive laparotomy may be required in refractory cases based on expert clinical judgment, precise indications and timing are still unclear. Implementation of institutional protocols based on the Abdominal Compartment Society reference standards is crucial to optimize both clinical management and research in this evolving area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".