Computed Tomography Angiography in Acute Gastrointestinal and Intra-abdominal Bleeding in Children: Preliminary Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute gastrointestinal (GI) and intra-abdominal bleeding from different etiologies is a medical emergency with a significant morbidity and mortality. Fast detection and localization of the bleeding site are essential for effective hemostatic therapy [1]. In children with a GI bleed, it is important to assess the hemodynamic status and to establish the site of bleeding and a differential diagnosis according to the presentation and the age of the patient [2]. In trauma, a prompt diagnosis of a bleeding site can improve the efficacy of patient management [3]. Rupture and bleeding are a known presentation of solid tumours, including hepatoblastoma and hepatocellular carcinoma [4]. The most frequent causes of GI and intra-abdominal bleeding in children are shown in Table 1. The initial approach to a patient with GI bleed is endoscopy, which can be diagnostic and therapeutic. If it fails, then catheter angiography is considered. With trauma or tumoural bleeding, angiography is considered according to the diagnostic imaging workup and clinical picture. Pediatric angiography has recognized complications, which nowadays are less frequent due to the improvement in the equipment and the use of ultrasound (US) for vascular access [5]. In taking this into consideration, it is important to adequately select the group of patients that will benefit from a conventional catheter angiography in this particular clinical setting. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) has an emerging role in the diagnosis of acute GI bleed in adults. Its
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".