MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004036085 · doi:10.4021//jmc.v3i5.635

Gastric Perforation Caused by Acute Massive Gastric Dilatation: Report of a Case

2012· article· en· W2004036085 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sung Ui Jung, Seunghyun Lee, Byung-Kwon Ahn, Sung-Uhn Baek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular anomalies and interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaparotomyStomachPerforationDuodenumSurgeryAbdominal distensionFundus (uterus)General surgeryGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gastric necrosis with perforation caused by acute gastric dilatation is an extremely rare presenting complication. We experienced a rare case of gastric perforation caused by acute massive gastric dilatation after a binge-eating episode. A 23-year old woman was admitted with a chief complaint of acute abdominal pain with severe abdominal distension after a heavy meal. She had no history of abdominal surgery. On computed tomography, the stomach and the duodenum were severely dilated with food content. There was no tumor in the peritoneal cavity. Despite conservative management, the patient’s symptoms were aggravated after 2 days and she underwent an emergent laparotomy. Laparotomy revealed that the stomach and the second portion of the duodenum were severely dilated. There was a small perforation with surrounding necrotic change on the fundus of the stomach. We performed decompression through a gastrotomy and bypass duodeno-jejunostomy. The patient’s postoperative recovery was uneventful. Physicians should be aware that binge-eating habits may cause acute massive gastric dilatation in the absence of a typical eating disorder history. doi:10.4021/jmc635w

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicVascular anomalies and interventionsFrench-language works237,207