MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401956105 · doi:10.53902/sioaj.2024.02.000508

Novel Treatment for the Prevention of Secondary Adhesions

2024· article· en· W4401956105 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Adebola Obayan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal University Hospital Foundation
KeywordsSecondary preventionMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adhesion formation following surgical procedures poses a major clinical challenge, often leading to chronic pain, increased hospital readmissions, and substantial healthcare costs exceeding a billion dollars annually. Despite advancements in surgical techniques, minimally invasive approaches, and barrier methods, there is a lack of targeted research on preventing secondary adhesions after adhesiolysis. This study aims to bridge this gap in the literature by exploring novel treatment options. In our earlier research, alanyl-glutamine was shown to effectively prevent primary adhesions in a rat model involving polypropylene-type meshes, which are typically associated with severe adhesions despite their suitability for hernia repair. Building on these findings, we extended our investigation to determine if this treatment could also prevent secondary adhesions post-adhesiolysis. In this study, adhesions were induced in Wistar rats, followed by adhesiolysis and subsequent treatment with alanyl-glutamine. Six weeks posttreatment, the extent of adhesion formation was evaluated, revealing no adhesion formation. Our results demonstrate that alanyl-glutamine effectively prevents both primary and secondary adhesions in a rat model, highlighting its potential as a promising intervention to mitigate the adverse effects and complications associated with surgical adhesions.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntestinal and Peritoneal AdhesionsFrench-language works237,207