MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety of radiologically placed gastrostomy tubes in paediatric haematology/oncology patients

2000· article· en· W1989165377 on OpenAlex
Mary Barron, David S. Duncan, G. Green, Diana Modrusan, Bairbre Connolly, Peter Chait, E. Fred Saunders, Mark Greenberg

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical and Pediatric Oncology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFeeding tubeComplicationSurgeryMalnutritionHematologyGastrostomy tubeGastrostomyWeight lossPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The treatment of malnutrition, which is of great concern in paediatric haematology/oncology patients, is fraught with problems. The goals of our study were to document the complications and assess the weight gain with gastrostomy tubes (G-tubes) in this population. PROCEDURE: Patient data were acquired by retrospective review of all haematology, oncology, and bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients (n = 44) who received radiologically placed G-tubes at our institution over a 4-year period. RESULTS: Forty-four G-tubes were placed (59% peri-BMT). At tube placement, 55% of patients were malnourished and 45% were nourished. Seventy-five percent of patients had the procedure without general anaesthetic. Localized G-tube-site infection was the most common complication (41%). Major complications occurred in 3 patients; 2 patients experienced localized peritonitis, and 1 patient developed a localized collection of pus in the abdominal wall. There were no G-tube-related deaths. At 1 month after the tube insertion, 39% of patients had gained, 54% maintained, and 7% lost weight. At 3 months, 69% had gained, 28% maintained, and 3% lost weight. There was a statistically significant weight gain from the time of the G-tube placement to both 1 month (P < 0.018) and 3 months (P < 0.0001) after G-tube placement. Patients in all diagnosis categories showed improvement from 1 to 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that retrograde tube placement is safe and can frequently be done without general anaesthetic and that G-tube feeding effectively reverses malnutrition and prevents weight loss in this patient population.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.285 · 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