MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109271411 · doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.06.006

Pediatric button battery injuries: 2013 task force update

2013· review· en· W2109271411 on OpenAlexaff
Kris R. Jatana, Toby Litovitz, James S. Reilly, Peter J. Koltai, Gene Rider, Ian N. Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicForeign Body Medical Cases
Canadian institutionsIntertek (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTask forceBattery (electricity)AsymptomaticMedical emergencyInjury preventionGovernment (linguistics)Occupational safety and healthPoison controlIncidence (geometry)SurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last 10 years, there has been a dramatic rise in the incidence of severe injuries involving children who ingest button batteries. Injury can occur rapidly and children can be asymptomatic or demonstrate non-specific symptoms until catastrophic injuries develop over a period of hours or days. Smaller size ingested button batteries will often pass without clinical sequellae; however, batteries 20mm and larger can more easily lodge in the esophagus causing significant damage. In some cases, the battery can erode into the aorta resulting in massive hemorrhage and death. To mitigate against the continued rise in life-threatening injuries, a national Button Battery Task Force was assembled to pursue a multi-faceted approach to injury prevention. This task force includes representatives from medicine, public health, industry, poison control, and government. A recent expert panel discussion at the 2013 American Broncho-Esophagological Association (ABEA) Meeting provided an update on the activities of the task force and is highlighted in this paper.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations219
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Pediatric OtorhinolaryngologySame topicForeign Body Medical CasesFrench-language works237,207