Double-blind randomized clinical trial of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy <i>versus</i> radiologically inserted gastrostomy in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this RCT was to determine whether radiologically inserted gastrostomy (RIG) in children is associated with more complications than percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). METHODS: Children at a single tertiary children's hospital requiring a primary gastrostomy were randomized to PEG or RIG. Patients were followed by assessors blinded to the insertion method. Complications were recorded, assigned a severity score, and analysed by zero-inflated Poisson regression analysis on an intention-to-treat basis, adjusting for length of follow-up. RESULTS: Over a 3-year period, 214 children were randomized (PEG, 107; RIG, 107), of whom 100 received PEG and 96 RIG. There was no significant difference in the number of complications between PEG and RIG groups (P = 0·875), or in the complication score: patients undergoing RIG had a 1·04 (95 per cent c.i. 0·89 to 1·21) times higher complication score than those who underwent PEG (P = 0·597). Only age had an independent significant effect on complication score, with older patients having a 0·97 (0·95 to 1·00) times lower complication score per year. CONCLUSION: PEG and RIG are both safe methods of gastrostomy insertion with a low rate of major complications. Registration number: NCT01920438 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".