Drain fluid's pH predicts anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: results of a prospective analysis of 173 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The early risk assessment of anastomotic leak (AL) after colorectal surgery is crucial. Several markers have been proposed, including peritoneal fluid's pH. Aim of the present study is to evaluate the role of drain fluid pH as predictor of AL. METHODS: All patients undergoing colorectal surgery from January 2015 to December 2017 were considered eligible. Hartmann procedures, procedures including temporary ileostomy and emergency surgery were excluded. Drain fluid was submitted for pH and chemical-physical assessment on postoperative day 1 (POD1) and postoperative day 3 (POD3). RESULTS: Out of 173 patients, those who developed AL showed a lower drain fluid's pH on POD1 and on POD3 compared to patients who did not (P<0.05). The plotted ROC curves identified 7.53 as pH cut-off on POD1 (AUC 0.80) and 7.21 on POD3 (AUC 0.86). With both the cut-offs, pH was an independent predictor of AL at multivariable analysis (P<0.001). pH<7.53 on POD1 and pH<7.21 on POD3 showed 93.75% sensitivity and 97% specificity respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Drain fluid's pH on POD1 is useful to select patients who will not develop AL while on POD3 it might identify those requiring a more careful management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".