MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bronchial balloon occlusion in children with complex pulmonary air leaks.

2013· article· en· W2122581288 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBronchopleural fistulaSurgeryBalloonPneumoniaOcclusionIncidence (geometry)LungPneumonectomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulmonary air leaks in children are most commonly due to infection or barotrauma. While cases of severe barotrauma are falling because of advances in neonatal care, the incidence of necrotising pneumonia is rising. The majority of air leaks can be managed conservatively, but more severe cases pose a significant challenge to the clinician. The use of occlusive endobronchial balloons is an established anaesthetic technique for a number of indications, but is not widely used in children. We conducted a review over a 12-year period, and report six cases of complex air leaks in which balloon occlusion was used. Balloon occlusion was successful in both cases of bronchopleural fistulae (secondary to severe necrotising pneumonia) and half of the cases of intrapulmonary air leak (due to barotrauma). In the other two cases (due to barotrauma and filamin A deficiency), it was transiently effective. No serious adverse effects or complications were encountered. In selected cases, endobronchial balloons are a useful adjunct in the management of life-threatening bronchopleural fistulae and cystic lung disease. The procedure is non-operative, minimally invasive and reversible. With the increasing incidence of bronchopleural fistulae, this may become an increasingly important therapy.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesFrench-language works237,207