MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191512212 · doi:10.21037/med-21-19

Blunt cardiac trauma: a narrative review

2021· review· en· W3191512212 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

VenueMediastinum · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBluntPsychological interventionModalitiesBlunt traumaPoison controlIntensive care medicinePhysical therapySurgeryMedical emergencyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This review aims to summarize the literature regarding blunt cardiac trauma (BCT), focusing on the mechanism of injury, presentations, diagnostic, and treatment approaches to provide an up-to-date perspective and to identify the areas requiring further investigation. BACKGROUND: BCT is a relatively rare, but likely underdiagnosed, consequence of blunt chest trauma. BCT occurs in less than 10% of all trauma admissions although it is responsible for approximately 25% of traumatic deaths. BCT often occurs due to forceful impact, rapid deceleration, or crush injuries and the most common causes include motor vehicle accidents, pedestrians struck by motor vehicles, and falls from a significant height. While BCT is certainly an important condition with significant clinical implications, the current literature is limited comprised of mainly case reports. BCTs are often complex cases with various presentations, comorbid injuries, diagnostic modalities, and treatments. METHODS: PubMed was searched for retrospective, prospective, randomized control trials, case report studies, and previous related reviews investigating BCT published from January 1, 1985 to February 1, 2021. Exclusion criteria included if the full length manuscript was not available and if insufficient data was provided regarding the patient outcomes or the case presented in case reports. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variety of injuries, mechanisms, presentations, and treatments are possible with BCT. Commonalities in initial investigations include a thorough history and physical exam where appropriate, lab work to evaluate patient status, and imaging to diagnose structural injuries. Treatment often begins with stabilization of the patient and rapid initiation of interventions aimed at underlying structural or rhythm abnormalities. As the current literature is limited, further study into BCT is necessary. As BCT is relatively rare and occurs sporadically at individual centers, widespread data collection from BCT patients regarding their treatment and outcomes is essential in order to collect the required data for retrospective or prospective studies. The widespread establishment of multicenter or national databases may be a solution to address the limited data in this field allowing identification of optimal treatments for BCT patients, addressing the limitations in the field of BCT, and allow the continued improvement in the outcomes of patients who experience BCT.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.307 · 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