Gastrostomy Tube Insertion in Children: The Edmonton Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although gastrostomy tube insertion - whether endoscopic or open - is generally safe, procedure-related complications have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To compare gastrostomy tube insertion-related complications between percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and open gastrostomy at a single pediatric centre. METHODS: The charts of children (younger than 17 years of age at the time of tube insertion) who underwent endoscopic or open gastrostomy tube insertion from January 2005 to December 2007 at the Stollery Children's Hospital (Edmonton, Alberta) were examined. RESULTS: A total of 298 children underwent gastrostomy tube insertion over a period of three years. After excluding patients with incomplete charts, 160 children (91 boys, mean [± SD] age 3.18 ± 4.73 years) were included. Eighty-five children (mean age 4.50 ± 5.40 years) had their gastrostomy tube inserted endoscopically, while the remaining 75 (mean age 1.68 ± 3.27 years; P<0.001) underwent an open procedure. The overall rate of major complications was 10.2% for the endoscopic technique and 8.6% for the open technique (P=0.1). Major infections were higher in the endoscopic technique group, while persistent gastrocutaneous fistulas after tube removal were more common in the open technique group. CONCLUSION: Although the rate of major complications was similar between the endoscopic and open tube insertion groups, major infections were more common among children who underwent endoscopic gastrostomy. The decision for gastrostomy tube insertion was primarily based on clinical background.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".