Infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis: An association in twins?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The etiology of infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (IHPS) remains a mystery. Some suspected risk factors include birth rank, maternal age, sex, family history and monozygosity in twins. Various theories attempt to explain the etiology of IHPS. Scientific research suggests that enteric neuronal damage and nitric oxide synthase dysfunction may be implicated, but the consensus is that environmental modification must exist to account for the variability in its occurrence. METHOD: Four cases of concordant occurrences of IHPS in twins were examined to determine the history and outcome of IHPS development in twins. Three sets were dizygotic and one was monozygotic. Of the eight infants, three were female, including the one monozygotic pair. In all four cases, a time lag existed between the development of symptomatic onset of IHPS in twin A and twin B. In one set, sonographic confirmation, performed because of IHPS diagnosis in the twin sibling, occurred concurrently with onset of vomiting, leading to early surgery before fluid and electrolyte imbalances developed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of agreement as to whether the cause of IHPS is genetic, environmental or both, the high concordance rate seen in twins is indisputable. Thus, the empirical evidence provides credence to consider examining the asymptomatic co-twin when one of the twins presents with IHPS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".