MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384697481 · doi:10.1177/14604086231184505

Can we predict failure of non-operative management of blunt splenic injuries on arrival? A comparison of predictors of immediate splenectomy versus splenectomy secondary to non-operative management failure

2023· article· en· W4384697481 on OpenAlexaffabout
Asad Naveed, Robert Christopher Adams-McGavin, Andrew Beckett, Errol Colak, João Rezende-Neto, Najma Ahmed, David Gómez

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Trauma and Injuries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Armed ForcesSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSplenectomyInjury Severity ScoreSurgeryTrauma centerLogistic regressionBluntShock (circulatory)Blunt traumaRetrospective cohort studySpleenEmergency medicinePoison controlInjury preventionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims and Background The spleen is the most frequently injured solid organ after blunt trauma and a trial non-operative management (NOM) has become the standard of care in hemodynamically stable patients. It remains uncertain which patients are at increased risk of non-operative management failure (NOMF) at initial presentation. We explored whether clinical variables including the contemporary rotational thromboelastography (ROTEM) parameters are predictive of NOMF. Materials and Methods Data for all adult patients with a blunt splenic injury was collected retrospectively at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada between 2005 and 2021. Those who underwent a splenectomy within 4 hours of presentation were classified as direct operative management (OM), while those who had a splenectomy after 4 hours of observation were classified as NOM failure. Vital signs on arrival and injury characteristics were collected. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of OM and predictors of NOM failure. Results Seven hundred and seventeen patients were identified with splenic injury during our study period. The median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 27 (IQR 17–36), and 19% ( n = 134) had a shock index of 1 or more. One hundred and eleven (15.5%) underwent direct operative management. A shock index above 1 and increasing spleen injury severity were strong predictors of patients undergoing direct OM. The remaining 606 patients underwent NOM of which 59% ( n = 357) of these were admitted to the ICU. NOM failure occurred in 7.4% ( n = 45) with a median time to NOM failure of 23 (IQR 8–72) hours. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) spleen injury severity was the major factor significantly associated with NOM failure. Conclusions The only major predictor of NOMF available on arrival is increased spleen injury grade. Other clinical variables such as age, vital signs on arrival, and bloodwork were not significantly able to predict NOM failure. Additional investigation is required to identify novel predictors of NOM failure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraumaSame topicAbdominal Trauma and InjuriesFrench-language works237,207