Incidence of normal white cell count and C‐reactive protein in adults with acute appendicitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Normal C-reactive protein (CRP) and white cell count (WCC) are often used to exclude a diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the Emergency Department (ED). Retrospective review of 281 adult patients with acute appendicitis was performed to study the incidence of normal CRP and WCC on admission and examine any possible predisposing factors. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of patient clinical records yielded CRP, WCC, operative diagnosis, time of symptom onset, imaging results and history and examination features. Case-control analysis was performed with patients with normal CRP and WCC considered the case group and those with raised CRP or WCC considered controls. Groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U-test and chi-squared analysis. RESULTS: Of 281 consecutive patients with histologically proven appendicitis, 24 (8.54%) had normal CRP and WCC on presentation to ED. There were no significant differences in age, sex or time to blood collection between groups. Three patients had normal WCC and CRP and an Alvarado score of 4 or less on presentation. Three patients had persistently normal CRP and WCC on repeated testing. There was a trend towards earlier presentation in patients with normal CRP and WCC with 75.0% versus 58.4% presenting within 24 h of symptom onset (OR 2.14, P = 0.112). CONCLUSION: Acute appendicitis remains diagnostically challenging and cannot be excluded on the basis of normal CRP and WCC. Serial clinical and biochemical assessment is warranted in patients with acute abdominal pain, particularly in those presenting early after symptom onset.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".