Outcomes after pancreatic trauma: experience at a single institution.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pancreatic injury following trauma is unusual, and there are few data regarding outcomes, particularly with respect to endocrine and exocrine function. The purpose of this study was to review our institutional experience in regard to this relatively infrequent injury and to determine the incidence of trauma-induced endocrine and exocrine pancreatic dysfunction as indicated by patient self-report. METHODS: After receiving institutional research ethics approval, we identified all patients with pancreatic injuries in our trauma registry database over a 5-year period. The diagnostic, operative information, hospital course and complication rates were abstracted from medical records. Patients who could be contacted completed a telephone-administered questionnaire to assess pancreatic function. RESULTS: We identified 25 patients who had suffered a pancreatic injury. Of these, 16 patients suffered blunt injury, and 9 suffered penetrating injury. Of the 25 patients, 13 underwent pancreatic surgery, and 6 required distal pancreatectomy. Early pancreas-specific complications occurred in 7 of 22 surviving patients (31.8%). Of the 25 patients identified, 6 could not be contacted for follow-up information. Of 19 patients contacted, 4 reported endocrine dysfunction. One of these was insulin-dependent before injury. No patient in this series reported exocrine dysfunction. The overall mortality rate in our series was 12%. CONCLUSION: Pancreatic injuries comprised about 1% of injuries captured by our trauma registry. Outcomes were similar in patients who suffered blunt or penetrating trauma. Of these patients, 52% underwent pancreatic surgery; 16% of patients in this small series reported endocrine deficiency posttrauma.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it