Effect of Pediatric Surgical Practice on the Treatment of Children With Appendicitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Acute appendicitis in children is managed by both general surgeons (GSs) and pediatric surgeons (PSs). Our objective was to investigate the economics of surgical care provided by either GSs or PSs for appendicitis. METHODS: The outcome of children within our state who underwent operative treatment for appendicitis (January 1994 to June 1997) by board-certified GSs were compared with the results of PSs. Data were sorted according to patient age and diagnosis according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision. Analysis of variance was performed on continuous data, and chi(2) analysis was performed on nominal data; data are depicted as mean +/- standard error of the mean. RESULTS: GSs (n = 2178) managed older children when compared with PSs (n = 1018; 11.0 +/- 0.1 vs 9.1 +/- 0.1 years) and less frequently treated perforated appendicitis (18.8% vs 31.9%). Independent of diagnosis (simple or perforated appendicitis), younger children (0-4 years, 5-8 years, and 9-12 years) who were treated by PSs had a significantly shorter hospital stay and/or decreased hospital charge when compared with those who were treated by GSs. However, older children (13-15 years) seemed to have comparable outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Younger children with appendicitis have reduced hospital days and charges when they are treated by PSs.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".