Efficacy and safety of radiologically placed gastrostomy tubes in paediatric haematology/oncology patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".