MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113229646 · doi:10.2310/7070.2004.03077

Retropharyngeal Abscess in Children: 10-Year Study

2004· review· en· W2113229646 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Basel Al-Sabah, Hashim Bin Salleen, Abdulrahman Hagr, Jeanne Choi‐Rosen, John J. Manoukian, Ted L. Tewfik

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOtolaryngology and Infectious Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClindamycinAbscessRetropharyngeal abscessComplicationSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyRetropharyngeal spaceComputed tomographicComputed tomographyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Retrospective analysis of all patients treated for retropharyngeal infection in a tertiary care pediatric hospital. METHODS: Charts were reviewed for demographic data, duration of symptoms, radiologic workup, antibiotic choice, microbiologic findings, surgical approach, complications, and duration of medical therapy. Surgical findings were correlated with computed tomographic (CT) scans. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were included in the study. Empirical intravenous clindamycin was started for a trial of conservative medical therapy. Fifty-one patients (75%) responded to medical treatment, and only 17 patients (25%) required surgical intervention. The CT scan showed a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 63% in this series. None of the patients with retropharyngeal infection died, had a major complication, or had a recurrence. CONCLUSION: Based on the current study, we propose that all patients should be given a trial of medical treatment with intravenous clindamycin. Surgery should be reserved for those who do not respond. An extensive review of the literature is presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations90
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicOtolaryngology and Infectious DiseasesFrench-language works237,207