Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of foreign bodies are ingested. Up to 90% of these will pass through the gastrointestinal tract spontaneously, 10% to 20% require endoscopic management and approximately 1% require surgical management (1). The pediatric population is most at risk, accounting for 80% of ingested foreign bodies. Adults, especially the mentally impaired, alcoholic and edentulous, may also accidentally ingest a foreign body. Prisoners and psychiatric patients may ingest foreign bodies intentionally for secondary gain, for instance, to instigate transfer to hospital from a prison or psychiatric institution. Purposeful ingestion of foreign bodies for the purpose of drug trafficking also occurs. Ingestion of multiple foreign bodies should always be considered in both children and adults. Among children and mentally impaired adults, commonly ingested objects include coins, small toys, crayons and batteries. In adults, the most common foreign body ingested is a poorly chewed bolus of meat, a bone or dentures. Intentional ingestion of a foreign body by a prisoner or psychiatric patient is often a razor blade or other sharp metallic object. The diagnosis is apparent from the patient’s history. The patient will often report a sudden onset of dysphagia during a meal, which may be accompanied by chest pain or odynophagia and an inability to tolerate secretions. In children or adults unable to provide a history, a sudden refusal to eat, drooling or respiratory symptoms such as coughing or wheezing due to aspiration are reasons to suspect foreign body ingestion. A careful physical examination should be performed to
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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".