Perfuração de mucosa esofágica por sonda entérica: relato de caso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study is a case report of a patient that was submitted to implant of enteric tube (ET) in the ICU, being evidenced false passage in proximal esophagus during endoscopic procedure, demonstrating tunnel for the submucosa. CASE REPORT: A 77 years old woman, transferred to ICU, where ET was installed (due to difficulty of being carried through both nostrils) being confirmed its position through thoraco-abdominal x-ray. The patient remained around 10 days with the ET, receiving diet, without any alteration. In the 10th day she was evolved with melena and reduction of the values of Hb/Ht, without hemodynamic repercussion. Submitted to the high digestive endoscopic that evidenced ulcer injury to bulbar, of about 2.5 cm, with signals of former bleeding. During the examination, a false passage of the ET in proximal esophagus was visualized: 2 cm below of the crico-faring, tunnel for the submucosa possibly for all above-mentioned segments, following its habitual passage until gastric chamber. CONCLUSIONS: Patients of high risk for esophagus perforation for ET installation can be identified and well-taken care of adjusted they can be used. If to occur perforation, this must be identified how much so early possible, for adequate treatment. The adequate treatment depends of each case and same the clinical therapy can be appropriate in selected cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".