Diagnostic Confusion Caused by a Giant Appendicolith: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies worldwide. The diagnosis is usually a clinical one, supported by laboratory and radiological investigations as required. However, atypical clinical presentation and imaging can cause diagnostic confusion. Possibility of appendicolith in imaging in presence of abdominal pain and no urological pathology warrant diagnostic laparoscopy to rule out appendicitis, as appendicoliths are associated with complicated appendicitis particularly when they are large. We report a case of a 24-year-old male patient with clinical presentation suggestive of urological problem, and the imaging showed unusual large opacities in right lower abdomen with possibility of foreign body in small bowel or large fecalith. A diagnostic laparoscopy was performed where perforated appendix with large fecalith was confirmed. J Med Cases. 2015;6(2):71-73 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jmc2032w
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".