Een pasgeborene die bellen blaast - alarmsignaal voor oesofagusatresie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a newborn develops feeding difficulties, is blowing bubbles or has excessive saliva, it is important to consider the diagnosis of oesophageal atresia. Prenatal detection of oesophageal atresia is difficult. Postnatal bubble blowing, resulting from the inability to swallow excessive oropharyngeal secretions, is pathognomonic. These symptoms should trigger the midwife or physician to consider this diagnosis. We present three cases to illustrate the difficulties of early recognition and the consequences of a late detection of this condition. The first and third cases show that a delayed diagnosis of oesophageal atresia can lead to dangerous situations. Our second case illustrates that not every poorly drinking neonate has oesophageal atresia, and that this diagnosis may be rejected if the physician is able to pass a nasogastric tube. In every neonate who is unable to drink, we advise attempting to pass a nasogastric tube and taking a chest x-ray to distinguish between oesophageal atresia and other causes of feeding problems
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.006 |
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".