Injury to Urachal Diverticulum Due to Laparoscopy Port: A Case Report, Literature Review and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery has gained widespread acceptance in elective and emergency situations due to reduced pain, length of hospital stay for patients and wider view of the operative field. However, it does bring its own set of specific risks and complications that must be kept in mind. Injury to the urinary bladder, in particular in the setting of an undiagnosed urachal abnormality can easily go unrecognized at the time of operation. Injury to an unsuspected urachal diverticulum due to laparoscopic port placement is an extremely rare complication due to the very low incidence of this abnormality. We report a case of a 10-year-old boy who sustained an injury to an urachal diverticulum during a routine laparoscopic appendicectomy and give recommendations to minimize the risk of injury to the urinary bladder or an associated urachal diverticulum. J Med Cases. 2015;6(1):1-5 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jmc2000w
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".