MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142713113 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0000000000000252

Damage control surgery

2015· review· en· W3142713113 on OpenAlex
Chad G. Ball

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

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDamage control surgeryDamage controlIntensive care medicineCritically illIntervention (counseling)SurgeryResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Damage control surgery (DCS) has become a lifesaving maneuver for critically injured patients when utilized in appropriate scenarios. Despite this reality, indications for initiating DCS remain debated. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite discussion surrounding the appropriate indications for DCS, this series of fundamental principles includes a rapidly abbreviated operative intervention aimed at arresting ongoing hemorrhage and containing gastrointestinal contamination in a patient approaching physiologic exhaustion, which includes both vascular and nonvascular damage control techniques, in addition to management of the open abdomen. Patients are then returned to the operating theater for definitive reconstruction once their physiology has been stabilized within the ICU. SUMMARY: DCS is lifesaving when applied in appropriate clinical scenarios involving critically injured patients. Overuse of this technique can lead to increased patient morbidity and cost however.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.458
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.082 · 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