Oesophageal perforation in preterm neonates: Not an innocent bystander
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical course and neonatal outcomes of preterm infants with oesophageal perforation (OP). METHODS: Retrospective case control study of infants admitted between 1994 and 2001 and diagnosed with OP was performed at two tertiary care centres in Toronto, Canada. One control per case was matched by the gestational age and the month of birth. Occurrence of air leak syndrome/pleural effusion requiring drainage, the duration of supplemental oxygen and the time to attain full feeds were compared. RESULTS: Ten cases of OP were identified. The commonest clinical presentation was air leak syndrome/pleural effusion. There was a statistically significant increase in the time to attain full enteral feeds in OP group (P = 0.02). The duration of supplemental oxygen was prolonged in infants with OP, however, this was statistically insignificant (P = 0.20). The infants were managed conservatively and perforation healed in all. CONCLUSION: Oesophageal perforation is a rare but important complication of modern neonatal intensive care setting. The diagnosis of OP should be considered in infants who present with sudden/acute deterioration in their respiratory status following procedures involving pharyngeal region. Conservative management in an otherwise uncomplicated case leads to complete recovery in neonates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".