Successful endoscopic management of gastric perforation caused by ingesting a sharp chicken bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal perforation related to foreign body ingestion is uncommon. Surgical interventions aiming at removal of the offending agent and restoration of bowel continuity are sought when perforations occur. Presentation of case A 68 year old male presented with epigastric abdominal pain and anorexia for 2 days. On examination, he was febrile and had localized epigastric tenderness. Laboratory investigations revealed marked leucocytosis with no other abnormalities. Computed tomography revealed the presence of a foreign body penetrating through the full thickness of the gastric wall with its tip lying adjacent to the pancreatic head. Endoscopic trial to extract the foreign body was successfully carried out. The gastric defect was sealed by applying an endoscopic metallic clip. DISCUSSION: Gastric perforations secondary to foreign body ingestion usually follow an elusive clinical course and are rarely diagnosed early in its course. Early diagnosis allows for the utilization of minimally invasive management. Unfortunately, Most reported cases were diagnosed after intra-abdominal processes, such as abscesses, have ensued. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the importance of early diagnosis of foreign body related gastrointestinal perforations and emphasizes the role of therapeutic endoscopy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".