MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936241338 · doi:10.1016/j.ijscr.2019.03.030

Pneumoretroperitoneum with subcutaneous emphysema after a post colonoscopy colonic perforation

2019· article· en· W2936241338 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery Case Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumothorax, Barotrauma, Emphysema
Canadian institutionsBrandon Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubcutaneous emphysemaPneumomediastinumColonoscopyPneumoperitoneumSurgeryPerforationPneumothoraxAbdominal painComplicationGeneral surgeryLaparoscopyColorectal cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy is considered as one of the most common performed procedures for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Serious complication after colonoscopy could occurs like bleeding or perforation. Majority of the perforations are intraperitoneal, while extraperitoneal perforations are very rare and it may cause pneumoretroperitoneum, pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax and subcutaneous emphysema. PRESENTATION OF THE CASE: A case report was described of 80-year-old female who underwent a diagnostic colonoscopy for recurrent abdominal pain who presented with severe abdominal pain and tenderness with CT findings of pneumoperitoneum, pneumoretroperitoneum and subcutaneous emphysema. The patient successfully treated surgically with laparoscopic Hartman procedure. DISCUSSION: Colonic perforation is rare complication of colonoscopy that can manifest intraperitoneal, extraperitoneal or a combination of both. Patient risk factors include advance age, female sex, diverticulosis, previous abdominal surgery and pre-existing colonic strictures. Technical risk factors includes excessive shearing forces during endoscopic insertion, dilation, biopsy and using electrocautery. Majority of the intraperitoneal perforation warrant a surgical intervention whereas isolated extraperitoneal perforation may be managed conservatively. CONCLUSION: Combined intraperitoneal and extraperitoneal colonic perforation are rare presentations following diagnostic colonoscopy and often difficult to diagnose based on the clinical manifestation only. Understanding the manifestation of extraperitoneal perforation will help to properly identify the condition and preventing morbidity and mortality in these patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.256 · 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