Comparison Between Small and Large Bowel Intussusception in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intussusception is the most common cause of intestinal obstruction in young children, and delayed diagnosis may lead to serious sequelae. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of ileoileal intussusception and to document and compare clinical outcomes with ileocolic intussusception. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of children with an abdominal ultrasound that diagnosed intussusception. Clinical data and diagnostic studies were retrieved, to compare ileoileal with ileocolic intussusception. RESULTS: A total of 488 patients were evaluated with an abdominal ultrasound on suspicion of intussusception; 54 (11%) had ileoileal intussusception and 30 (6%) ileocolic intussusception. The significant features distinguishing the 2 conditions were fever, more common in patients with ileoileal intussusception, and an abdominal mass, which was papable more commonly in ileocolic intussusception. None of the ileoileal intussusception patients required surgical intervention, and all were discharged without complication. CONCLUSIONS: With recent advances in abdominal ultrasound, the diagnosis of ileoileal intussusception has become easier than before. Patients presenting with small bowel intussusception may not need any immediate intervention. The presence of fever supports the diagnosis of ileoileal intussusception.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".