MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175249266 · doi:10.14740/jmc.v6i12.2284

Incarcerated Amyand’s Hernia With Acute Appendicitis: A Case Report

2015· article· en· W2175249266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karleigh R. Curfman, Brendan Gontarz, Michael D. Facciolo, Meera Cheerharan, R. Jonathan Robitsek, Sebastian D. Schubl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHernia repair and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAppendixAppendicitisAcute appendicitisHerniaGeneral surgeryInguinal herniaHernia repairBowel obstructionGroinSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amyand’s hernia is a rare condition defined as the inclusion of the appendix in an inguinal hernia sac, which becomes even rarer in a concomitant case of acute appendicitis. In patients presenting with an incarcerated inguinal hernia and underlying acute appendicitis, the obvious symptoms of the incarceration can mask those of appendicitis. This can complicate management, often leading to a missed pre-operative diagnosis and an emergent intraoperative finding often requiring immediate repair. For this study, we present one case of Amyand’s hernia that was diagnosed intraoperatively. The patient is a 58-year-old African American male who presented to his primary care physician for worsening groin pain, later to undergo surgery for an incarcerated hernia. As described, in instances of Amyand’s hernia, signs of acute appendicitis may not be initially recognized as they are overshadowed by apparent signs of bowel obstruction. This was the case while our patient was in surgery, as signs suggestive of acute appendicitis were discovered and the patient received an appendectomy in addition to hernia repair. The diagnosis of Amyand’s hernia with acute appendicitis has been reviewed in other publications and was found to be a rare condition. As the occurrence rate is so low, there are different methods of management for specific classifications of Amyand’s hernia. The case report, background research, statistics, classifications, and specific managements are being presented within this article. The purpose of this study is to evaluate our case against the published data and the procedural recommendations. J Med Cases. 2015;6(12):592-595 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc2284w

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicHernia repair and managementFrench-language works237,207