MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124206076 · doi:10.1542/pir.23-9-330

Aspiration in Infants and Children

2002· article· en· W2124206076 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pazhanivel Mohan

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatrics in Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTracheal and airway disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePediatricsMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Parvathi Mohan, MD 1. Children’s National Medical Center Washington, DC 1. Gastroesophageal Reflux . Orenstein SR. In: Pediatric Gastrointestinal Disease . Wyllie R, Hyams JS, eds. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders;1993:337–369 2. Disorders of Deglutition . Tuchman DN. In: Pediatric Gastrointestinal Disease . Walker WA, Durie PR et al, eds. Ontario, Toronto, Canada: B C Decker Inc; 2000:277–288 3. Vocal Cord Paralysis in Infants and Children . De Jong AL, Kuppersmith RB, Sulek M, Friedman EM. Otolaryngol Clin North Am . 2000;33:131–149 4. Advances in Pediatric Airway Radiology . Wiet GJ, Long FR, Shiels WE II, Rudman DT. Otolaryngol Clin North Am . 2000;33:15–28 Safe swallowing of solid foods and liquids is the result of a complex interaction of cranial nerves and muscles of the oral cavity, pharynx, and proximal esophagus. During the voluntary oral phase, the food bolus is altered in the mouth and propelled past the pharynx where the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts meet; precise coordinating mechanisms are crucial to prevent aspiration into the respiratory passage. Normal mechanisms of safe swallow include raising of the palate, epiglottic tilt, cord closure, primary peristalsis of the esophagus, and the tone and sequential relaxation of the upper and lower esophageal sphincters. Disorders affecting the central and peripheral nervous system and muscles of the previously noted structures, therefore, can affect swallowing mechanisms and lead to potentially dangerous sequelae. Aspiration may be defined as the accidental entry of a foreign …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatrics in ReviewSame topicTracheal and airway disordersFrench-language works237,207