Association between the appendix and the fecalith in adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the association between the presence of a fecalith and acute/nonperforated appendicitis, gangrenous/perforated appendicitis and the healthy appendix. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed appendectomies performed between October 2003 and February 2012. We collected data on age, sex, appendix histology and the presence of a fecalith. RESULTS: During the study period, 1357 appendectomies were performed. Fecaliths were present in 186 patients (13.7%). There were 94 male (50.5%) and 92 female patients, and the mean age was 32 (range of 10-76) years. The fecalith rate was 13%- 16% and was nonexistant after age 80 years. The main groups with fecaliths were those with acute/nonperforated appendicitis (n = 121, 65.1%, p = 0.041) and those with a healthy appendix (n = 65, 34.9%, p = 0.003). The presence of fecaliths in the gangrenous/perforated appendicitis group was not significant (n = 19, 10.2%, p = 0.93). There were no fecaliths in patients with serositis, carcinoid or carcinoma. CONCLUSION: Our data confirm the theory of a statistical association between the presence of a fecalith and acute (nonperforated) appendicitis in adults. There was also a significant association between the healthy appendix and asymptomatic fecaliths. There was no correlation between a gangrenous/perforated appendix and the presence of a fecalith. The fecalith is an incidental finding and not always the primary cause of acute (nonperforated) appendictis or gangrenous (perforated) appendicitis. Further research on the topic is recommended.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 it