Clinical judgment remains of great value in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observation and repeated examination may lead to favourable clinical outcomes in the ever-challenging diagnosis of appendicitis. The goal of this study was to evaluate clinical performance in the diagnosis of suspected appendicitis in a centre with limited access to medical imaging technologies and to identify factors associated with complicated cases. METHODS: A retrospective review of the medical records of 211 consecutive surgical cases of suspected appendicitis, spanning an 11-year period, was performed. The delays before treatment and the subsequent patient outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: There were 8.1% of cases with negative findings on appendectomy, 75.8% with uncomplicated appendicitis, 12.3% with complicated appendicitis and 3.8% with other surgical conditions. The delay before the first medical consultation was significantly longer in patients with complicated appendicitis. The various delays after the first medical consultation did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of limited available medical imaging modalities, clinical observation was not associated with an increased incidence of complicated appendicitis. The presence of complicated appendicitis was associated with the delay before the patient's first medical consultation. Clinical judgment can be prioritized and can lead to good clinical performance in the management of patients with suspected appendicitis, with no significant increase in rates of complicated appendicitis and negative findings on appendectomy.
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) | 0.001 | 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".