Esophageal Wishbone Extraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ingestion of foreign bodies in the pediatric population is common and in the majority of cases involves spontaneous passage through the esophagus; however, they can become lodged in spaces of anatomical narrowing. Sharp foreign bodies are of particular concern due to a higher chance of perforation and other complications. The goal of this case report is to describe the safe removal of a chicken wishbone and 3 alternate options in the event that the initial choice was unsuccessful. METHODS: We report the case of a 2-year-old boy who presented to our pediatric tertiary center after unsuccessful endoscopic removal of a chicken wishbone from the esophagus. RESULTS: Radiologically, the wishbone was oriented with the tines pointing up. Endoscopic examination revealed the tips of both tines to be embedded deeply into the lateral walls of the esophageal mucosa. Esophagoscopy and protecting the sharp points of the wishbone were used to successfully extract the intact wishbone. CONCLUSION: Previous techniques have involved cutting the bone; however, in this case, tension was so high that it was felt that cutting the bone would result in perforation. Proper management of such cases requires planning and often multiple strategies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".