MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296960059 · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2022.4299

Operative vs Nonoperative Treatment of Acute Unstable Chest Wall Injuries

2022· letter· en· W4296960059 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Surgery · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineFlail chestSurgeryRandomized controlled trialMechanical ventilationPneumoniaIntensive care unitChest injuryAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Unstable chest wall injuries have high rates of mortality and morbidity. In the last decade, multiple studies have reported improved outcomes with operative compared with nonoperative treatment. However, to date, an adequately powered, randomized clinical trial to support operative treatment has been lacking. Objective: To compare outcomes of surgical treatment of acute unstable chest wall injuries with nonsurgical management. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial conducted from October 10, 2011, to October 2, 2019, across 15 sites in Canada and the US. Inclusion criteria were patients between the ages of 16 to 85 years with displaced rib fractures with a flail chest or non-flail chest injuries with severe chest wall deformity. Exclusion criteria included patients with significant other injuries that would otherwise require prolonged mechanical ventilation, those medically unfit for surgery, or those who were randomly assigned to study groups after 72 hours of injury. Data were analyzed from March 20, 2019, to March 5, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive operative treatment with plate and screws or nonoperative treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs) in the first 28 days after injury. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, and rates of complications (pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, sepsis, tracheostomy). Results: A total of 207 patients were included in the analysis (operative group: 108 patients [52.2%]; mean [SD] age, 52.9 [13.5] years; 81 male [75%]; nonoperative group: 99 patients [47.8%]; mean [SD] age, 53.2 [14.3] years; 75 male [76%]). Mean (SD) VFDs were 22.7 (7.5) days for the operative group and 20.6 (9.7) days for the nonoperative group (mean difference, 2.1 days; 95% CI, -0.3 to 4.5 days; P = .09). Mortality was significantly higher in the nonoperative group (6 [6%]) than in the operative group (0%; P = .01). Rates of complications and length of stay were similar between groups. Subgroup analysis of patients who were mechanically ventilated at the time of randomization demonstrated a mean difference of 2.8 (95% CI, 0.1-5.5) VFDs in favor of operative treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this randomized clinical trial suggest that operative treatment of patients with unstable chest wall injuries has modest benefit compared with nonoperative treatment. However, the potential advantage was primarily noted in the subgroup of patients who were ventilated at the time of randomization. No benefit to operative treatment was found in patients who were not ventilated. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01367951.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.251 · 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