MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162236213 · doi:10.1177/0009922813506255

Intussusception in Children Presenting to the Emergency Department

2013· article· en· W2162236213 on OpenAlexaff
Ailie Lochhead, Roaa Jamjoom, Savithiri Ratnapalan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pediatrics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntussusception (medical disorder)Emergency departmentGastrostomy tubeCryingAbdominal painPediatricsIncidence (geometry)Tertiary careBowel resectionGastrostomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A retrospective chart review of children diagnosed with intussusceptions from March 2005 to March 2007 was conducted at a tertiary care pediatric hospital. There were 152 children with 170 episodes of intussusceptions during the study period. Around one third (30%) of children diagnosed with intussusceptions had a concurrent infection. There were 114 large bowel intussusceptions, with a mean age of 27 months (SD = 25) and a success rate of 91% for air enema reductions. Bowel resection was performed in 8.8% of children with large bowel intussusceptions. Small bowel intussusceptions (n = 38) were associated with gastrostomy tubes in 42% (n = 16) of patients, and 81% needed tube shortening. The varying age range of many children diagnosed with intussusceptions and the high incidence of intercurrent illnesses and fever in our study alert health professionals to suspect intussusceptions in children presenting with abdominal pain or crying.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical PediatricsSame topicGastrointestinal disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207