Characteristics and outcomes of children with enterostomy feeding tubes: A study of 325 children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the characteristics and outcomes of children with gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy tubes inserted before age three years, and to identify the factors that predict removal of the enterostomy tubes within 12 months of insertion. DESIGN: Case review of a consecutive sample of 325 medical records. SETTING: A tertiary care paediatric hospital that is situated in a large metropolitan area. PATIENTS: All outpatients and inpatients from birth to 36 months of age who had an enterostomy tube inserted from 1994 to 1996. METHODS: No direct intervention was provided. In the subgroup of 203 patients with a follow-up period of at least 12 months after tube insertion, children whose tubes were removed within 12 months of insertion were compared with children who continued to receive tube feedings for 12 months or longer. RESULTS: At the time of tube insertion, the median age of patients was six months; 47% of the children for whom data were available were failing to thrive. Although 66 (21%) of 321 patients for whom data were available had their tubes removed, only 25 of the 203 (12%) patients with a follow-up period of 12 months or more had their tubes removed within 12 months of insertion. Children whose tubes were removed less than 12 months after insertion differed from children whose tubes were not removed with respect to medical diagnosis (no children with cerebral palsy had their tubes removed versus 33% of children with cancer who had their tube removed). Most children with failure to thrive at the time of tube insertion were also failing to thrive at the time of tube removal. CONCLUSION: Children with cerebral palsy are not likely to have enterostomy tubes removed within one year of insertion.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".