MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007136466 · doi:10.1148/rg.272055098

Necrotizing Enterocolitis: Review of State-of-the-Art Imaging Findings with Pathologic Correlation

2007· review· en· W2007136466 on OpenAlexaff
Mónica Epelman, Alan Daneman, Oscar M. Navarro, Iris Morag, Aideen M. Moore, Jae‐Hong Kim, Ricardo Faingold, Glenn Taylor, J. Ted Gerstle

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNecrotizing enterocolitisEnterocolitisCorrelationPathologyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plain abdominal radiography is the current standard imaging modality for evaluation of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). Sonography is still not routinely used for diagnosis and follow-up, as it is not widely recognized that it can provide information that is not provided by plain abdominal radiography and that may affect the management of NEC. Like plain abdominal radiography, sonography can depict intramural gas, portal venous gas, and free intraperitoneal gas. However, the major advantages of abdominal sonography over plain abdominal radiography are that it can depict intraabdominal fluid, bowel wall thickness, and bowel wall perfusion. Sonography may depict changes consistent with NEC when the plain abdominal radiographic findings are nonspecific and inconclusive. Thinning of the bowel wall and lack of perfusion at sonography are highly suggestive of nonviable bowel and may be seen before visualization of pneumoperitoneum at plain abdominal radiography. The mortality rate is higher after perforation; thus, earlier detection of severely ischemic or necrotic bowel loops, before perforation occurs, could potentially improve the morbidity and mortality in NEC. The information provided by sonography allows a more complete understanding of the state of the bowel in patients with NEC and may thus make management decisions easier and potentially change outcome.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.337
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations334
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207