MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020020897 · doi:10.1055/s-2008-1038395

Large Paraesophageal Hernias in Children. Early Experience with Laparoscopic Repair

2008· article· en· W2020020897 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marcos Bettolli, S. Rubin, Andrea Gutauskas

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pediatric Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryHerniaHiatal herniaComplicationGastrostomyLaparoscopyRefluxGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Large paraesophageal hernias (LPEH) in children are unusual. The aim of this study is to report the management of LPEH and our initial experience with the laparoscopic approach. METHODS: Since September 2005, four children aged 4-17 years underwent laparoscopic repair of LPEH at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Three children had previous fundoplications and two of these had a gastrostomy. Closure of the hiatal defect included crural sutures and prosthetic material, either polytetrafluoroethylene-polypropylene mesh or porcine small intestinal submucosal patch. The charts were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The operative time was 300-540 minutes, with one conversion and two mediastinal pleural tears. Postoperative chest X-ray showed neither mediastinal nor intrapleural air. The median hospital stay was 3 days. Contrast X-ray showed no recurrent hernia and an intact fundoplication. CONCLUSION: LPEH in children is usually a complication of previous fundoplication. Laparoscopic repair is technically demanding but feasible. Adequate crural repair using mesh may reduce the incidence of recurrence. In view of the rarity of LPEH in children, a combined multicenter study is needed to evaluate the results of laparoscopic repair.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Pediatric SurgerySame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207