Incidence and Significance of Inconclusive Results in Ultrasound for Appendicitis in Children and Teenagers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Frustratingly, sonography to assess for appendicitis in children often leads to an inconclusive report (eg, "suspicious for appendicitis") or nonvisualization of the appendix. To aid in planning who to image and how to interpret the results, we investigated whether these 2 results were more frequent in teenagers than preteens and the prevalence of appendicitis associated with each result. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed sonographic and surgical findings in patients <18 years (n = 189) referred with clinical suspicion of appendicitis over a 12-month period. Children (≤12.0 years old; n = 86) and teens (>12.0 years old; n = 103) were compared. RESULTS: Prevalence of appendicitis was 34% in each group, similar to other centres; 0% for those with negative ultrasound reports (0/35), 10% for nonvisualized appendix (8/84), 68% for inconclusive report (15/22), and 85% for positive ultrasound (41/48). Teens were significantly more likely to have an inconclusive ultrasound. Inconclusive reports were because of borderline findings (eg, appendix size near 6 mm; 9/22), body habitus, bowel gas, or unusual findings due in retrospect to perforation. The rate of nonvisualization of the appendix did not vary significantly with age (42% vs 47%). CONCLUSION: An inconclusive result of ultrasound for appendicitis was significantly more frequent in teens than in preteens and carried a high (68%) likelihood of appendicitis. Conversely, a nonvisualized appendix was equally frequent in teens and preteens, and had a low likelihood of appendicitis (only 10% positive). These findings encourage the use of ultrasound in preteens in particular and can assist interpretation of these common results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".