Study of 24 cases with congenital esophageal atresia: What are the risk factors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recovery from esophageal atresia (EA) and tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) has improved markedly over the years. But postoperative complications, however, have remained. This study evaluates recovery, preoperative, and postoperative status of patients with EA/TEF. METHODS: A retrospective study review was undertaken in 24 patients with EA/TEF after primary anastomosis (January 1975 through September 2003). RESULTS: There were no patients who had major cardiac anomalies or trisomy 18. In total, 17 of 24 (70.8%, group A) patients have survived and seven (29.2%, group B) have died. Birthweight and Apgar Scores in group A were significantly higher than in group B. The ratio of GAP (the distance of the location of the blind pouch from the ends of the upper and lower esophagus) to body length in group B was significantly higher than in group A. The birthweight and Apgar Scores in group A were significantly higher than in group B. When the authors compared their sample of cases by means of the Waterston classification, the Montreal classification and the Spitz classification, there were statistically significant differences between the results using the Waterston classification and the results using to the Spitz classification. CONCLUSION: For the cases of EA surgery that were examined, the authors concluded that bodyweight at birth and the existence of pre-surgery respiratory system complications have a significant effect on post-surgery recovery, and that results appear to indicate the importance of classification using the Waterston classification and Spitz classification as a means of assessing the degree of risk. Results also appeared to indicate that the control of Respiratory Distress Syndrome throughout both the pre-surgery and post-surgery periods is critical.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".