Intussusception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the incidence of complications and intussusception recurrences in patients in the pediatric emergency department observation unit (EDOU) who are fed early (< 2 hours) versus late (≥ 2 hours) after radiologic intussusception reduction. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of children observed in the Texas Children's Hospital EDOU after radiologic intussusception reduction between April 1, 2003, and August 31, 2009. Complications were defined as the postreduction occurrence of intestinal perforation, shock, or sepsis. RESULTS: There were 149 patients included in the study (median age, 16 months; range, 3-95 months). Oral refeeding was started early in 61 patients (41%) and late in 88 patients (59%). The median length of EDOU stay was 15.6 hours in early refeeders and 16.1 hours in late refeeders (P = 0.58). None of the patients developed any complications. There was no difference in the frequency of postreduction fever, abdominal pain, or vomiting (13% early vs 16% late, P = 0.65); imaging to assess for intussusception recurrence (20% early vs 22% late, P = 0.79); and subsequent hospitalization (3% early vs 8% late, P = 0.31) between the groups. The frequency of intussusception recurrence was higher, but not significantly so (P = 0.31), in the late refeeders (15%) compared with the early refeeders (8%). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for a difference in complication frequency, intussusception recurrence, or EDOU length of stay between patients who are fed early (< 2 hours) or late (≥ 2 hours) after radiologic intussusception reduction. This indicates that there is no need to withhold feeds from patients after intussusception reduction.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".