MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062908944 · doi:10.1159/000236596

Pneumatosis Intestinalis: Can We Avoid Surgical Intervention in Nonsurgical Patients?

2009· article· en· W2062908944 on OpenAlexaff
Ayman Al‐Talib, Fahd Al-Ghtani, Roni Munk

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Gastroenterology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal vascular conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePneumatosis intestinalisPeritonitisGastrointestinal tractSepsisSurgeryChemotherapyRadiologyIntensive care medicineGastroenterologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pneumatosis intestinalis (PI) is the presence of gas within the wall of the gastrointestinal tract and represents a tremendous spectrum of conditions and outcomes, ranging from benign diseases to abdominal sepsis and death. It is seen with increased frequency in patients who are immunocompromised because of steroids, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or AIDS. PI may result from intraluminal bacterial gas entering the bowel wall due to increased mucosal permeability caused by defects in bowel wall lymphoid tissue. We present a case of PI who was treated conservatively and in whom PI resolved completely and we present a literature review of conservative management. It is not difficult to make a precise diagnosis of PI and to prevent unnecessary surgical intervention, especially when PI presents without clinical evidence of peritonitis. Conservative treatment is possible and safe for selected patients. Awareness of these rare causes of PI and close observation of selected patients without peritonitis may prevent unnecessary invasive surgical explorations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in GastroenterologySame topicAbdominal vascular conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207