Analgesic Use in Children With Acute Abdominal Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of analgesic use in children (5 to 17 years inclusive) who present to a pediatric emergency department with acute abdominal pain. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review of patients presenting to a children's hospital over a 1-year period with a chief complaint of abdominal pain and subsequently referred to the pediatric surgical service. The records were reviewed to determine emergency department analgesic use, patient disposition, and laparotomy rate. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety patients met our inclusion criteria. Of the patients seen initially by emergency physicians, 14.3% received analgesics, while those seen directly by the surgical service received analgesia 15.4% of the time. The laparotomy rate for the 290 patients was 46.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Analgesic use in children who present to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain and require a surgical consultation was very low, although half required a laparotomy. Prospective studies are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of analgesic use in this setting.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".