Paediatric aerodigestive foreign bodies: remember the nasopharynx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nasopharyngeal foreign bodies are relatively uncommon, compared with other aerodigestive sites. They may mimic a lower airway location, or may be coughed up into the nasopharynx prior to endoscopic evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To describe our experience with nasopharyngeal foreign bodies mimicking a more distal airway location. METHOD: Case series from a tertiary referral children's hospital. RESULTS: We present a series of four children who were initially thought to have a lower aerodigestive tract foreign body (three respiratory, one oesophageal), but who were finally diagnosed with nasopharyngeal foreign body. The concept of panendoscopy at all foreign body removals is suggested as a means to avoid a missed nasopharyngeal foreign body. CONCLUSION: Although nasopharyngeal foreign bodies are uncommon, their rare ability to mimic distal sites mandates a thorough endoscopic approach to ensure that all sites (i.e. larynx, lungs, oesophagus and nasopharynx) are evaluated endoscopically.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".