Management and In-hospital Mortality of 2203 Patients With a Traumatic Intimal Tear of the Thoracic Aorta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to describe contemporary management and inhospital mortality associated with blunt thoracic aortic intimal tears (IT) within the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The evidence basis for nonoperative expectant management of traumatic iT of the thoracic aorta remains weak. METHODS: All adult patients with a thoracic aortic IT following blunt trauma were captured from Level I and II North American Centers enrolled in Trauma Quality Improvement Program from 2010 to 2017. For each patient, we extracted demographics, injury characteristics, the timing and approach of thoracic aortic repair and in-hospital mortality. Mortality attributable to IT was calculated by comparing IT patients to a propensity-score matched control cohort of severely injured blunt trauma patients without aortic injury. RESULTS: There were 2203 IT patients across 315 facilities. Injury most often resulted from motor vehicle collision (75%). A total of 758 patients (34%) underwent operative management, with 93% (N = 708) of repairs performed via an endovascular approach. Median time to surgery was 11 hours (IQR 4- 40). The frequency of operative management was higher in patients without traumatic brain injury (TBI) (35%, N = 674) compared to those with TBI (29%, N = 84) (P = 0.024). Compared to severely injured blunt trauma patients without aortic injury, ITwas not associated with additional in-hospital mortality (10.7% for IT vs 11.7% for no IT, absolute risk difference: -1.0%, 95% CI: -2.9% to 0.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of blunt thoracic IT are managed nonoperatively and IT does not confer additional in-hospital mortality risk. Future studies should focus on the risk of injury progression.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".