MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150740753 · doi:10.1016/j.ijscr.2015.02.012

Successful endoscopic management of gastric perforation caused by ingesting a sharp chicken bone

2015· article· en· W2150740753 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed F. Shaheen, Pierre Barrette

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery Case Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicForeign Body Medical Cases
Canadian institutionsHamilton General HospitalRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineForeign bodyPerforationEpigastric painSurgeryEndoscopyAnorexiaAbdominal painPresentation (obstetrics)RadiologyVomitingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Surgery Case ReportsSame topicForeign Body Medical CasesFrench-language works237,207