MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411179156 · doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000004654

Source control in intra-abdominal infections: What you need to know

2025· article· en· W4411179156 on OpenAlexaff
Federico Coccolini, Andrew W. Kirkpatrick, Camilla Cremonini, Massimo Sartelli

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Providing optimal source control (SC) for intra-abdominal sepsis (IAS) is a critically important surgical principle, yet one that remains nebulous in terms of strict definitions and required conduct. The entire concept of SC has evolved in the last decades. Contemporary SC is not only surgical but also embraces minimally invasive percutaneous and medical therapies. We propose that adequate SC has evolved from the mere anatomical control of enteric leakage, cleansing of obvious contaminants and necrosis, to a more comprehensive anatomo-phyiological-biochemical model. While any breaches in the integrity of the gastrointestinal tract should be addressed urgently, SC should ultimately aim to control the generation and propagation of systemic biomediators, bacterial toxins, and toxic catabolites that perpetuate multisystem organ failure and death. Much urgently needs to be learned to understand and hopefully mitigate the dysbiotic influences of IAS on the human microbiome. Finally, the therapy offered should always be individualized, recognizing patient's unique pathophysiology, clinical condition, comorbidities, and predeclared preferences regarding invasive therapies and life-support.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.015
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0110.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207