The Diagnostic Value of Double-Balloon Enteroscopy in Children with Small Bowel Disease: Report of 31 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Before the introduction of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE), it was impossible to visualize the entire small bowel. Its diagnostic yield has been assessed in adults, but not yet in children. The present retrospective study evaluated the diagnostic usefulness and safety of DBE in children with suspected small bowel disease. METHODS: Between June 2003 and June 2007, 31 patients (19 boys and 12 girls, age range three to 14 years) with suspected small bowel disease underwent DBE after receiving negative evaluations using other diagnostic modalities. RESULTS: There were no severe complications. In two patients, the entire small bowel was viewed using oral and anal approaches, and for the remaining 29 patients, only one approach was used. The sites of disease in were identified in 25 of 31 cases (80.65%). The bleeding source was found in 21 of 27 patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (diagnostic rate of 77.78%). Different diseases were identified in four children with chronic diarrhea. CONCLUSION: DBE is a safe and effective method to diagnose patients with suspected small bowel disorders.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".