MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W124369821 · doi:10.1093/pch/6.3.131

Looking at the whole picture...

2001· article· en· W124369821 on OpenAlexaffabout
J Cairns

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A seven-month-old infant was admitted to hospital with vomiting and abdominal distention. His past history revealed that he was born at term. There were difficulties establishing oral feedings. The infant was managed with total parenteral nutrition, and discharged home at nine days of age. At five months of age, the baby was seen with a history of intermittent vomiting of bile-stained fluid during the previous two to three weeks. An abdominal x-ray showed distended loops of bowel. A barium enema was performed to rule out intussusception. This investigation showed the cecum to be in a “high lying medial position”. Two days later, an upper gastrointestinal series showed a “spiral appearance to the proximal jejunum descending in the midline”. The radiologist expressed concern: “There was a malrotation at the mid gut. The radiological appearance suggested nonfixation of the mesentery and that the patient may be predisposed at some stage to a mid gut volvulus”. The infant was in hospital for four days and discharged. Over the next 44 days, the baby had repeated visits to doctors’ offices and to the emergency department with a complaint of recurrent vomiting of bile-stained fluid and, at times, constipation. During that time he was seen in consultation by three paediatricians, a general surgeon, a paediatric surgeon and three different family physicians. A repeat barium enema was performed in a facility outside the hospital and showed the same findings. On the final admission, the infant was admitted because of vomiting, constipation and lethargy. Over the next 8 h, his heart rate increased from 136 to 156 to 180 beats/min and, finally, to 200 beats/min 8 h after admission. Blood pressures were never recorded. The abdomen became increasingly distended, and the child was brought to the x-ray department for another barium enema to rule out intussusception. During the procedure, the baby regurgitated, aspirated and died. At autopsy, the infant was found to have a malrotation of the gut, with a volvulus and infarction of the entire small bowel. At the subsequent inquest, the jury expressed concern that each of the physicians who saw this child did not appear to have reviewed the entire record to get a total picture of the infant’s illness. Concern was also expressed that when x-rays are performed in two different settings, they should be compared. Expert testimony suggested that intermittent vomiting of bile in the neonatal period should be considered malrotation with volvulus until proven otherwise. This baby clearly had intermittent volvulus from which he recovered each time, except for the final admission. The baby’s vital signs clearly indicated an infant who was going into shock. Despite this, intravenous access was not established, and appropriate fluid resuscitation was not implemented. The jury recommended that physicians gain expertise in the insertion of intraosseous needles and maintain Pediatric Advanced Life Support certification. The failure to measure blood pressure, the failure to recognize increasing tachycardia and the failure to initiate appropriate fluid replacement are frequent themes observed by Ontario’s Paediatric Death Review Committee. The committee encourages physicians who assess children who have seen many other physicians to review comprehensively the children’s entire history – all assessments, consultations, and laboratory and x-ray reports.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0840.044

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicGastrointestinal disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207