Recurrent Intussusception in Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The majority of intussusceptions, between 2 months and 2 years, are idiopathic. Indication of surgery in infants with recurrences is still matter for debate. The aim of our study was to review our experience to better define the management of recurrent intussusceptions (RIs). Methods: A retrospective study was conducted involving all patients treated for intussusception at the Department of Pediatric Surgery “A” of Tunis Childre n’s Hospital, over a 5-year period, going from 2008 through 2012. Patients admitted for more than one episode of intussusception were further investigated. Results: During the 5-year period, 170 infants and children younger than 2 years were diagnosed as having ileocolic intussusception. There were 10 patients with 12 recurrences. Overall recurrence rate was 6%. RI occurred in all cases following successful hydrostatic reduction. Nine infants underwent a second hydrostatic reduction of intussusception. The reduction was successful in all cases. The other infant was taken directly to the operating room because it was too sick to undergo enema. No lead point was found at surgery. The two patients who presented a second recurrence had a successful non-operative reduction. Subsequent laparoscopic exploration was normal in both cases. Conclusion: Based on our experience and on reviewing the literature, we recommend radiological reduction for more than the third episode of intussusceptions but we must take into consideration the socio-economic level of the parents. Surgery should be reserved for irreducible recurrences and in patients with a suspected pathologic lead point. Int J Clin Pediatr. 2014;3(4):105-107 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/ijcp175w
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".