MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790184283 · doi:10.14740/gr954w

Gastric Outlet and Duodenal Obstruction as a Complication of Migrated Gastrostomy Tube: Report of Two Cases and Literature Review

2018· article· en· W2790184283 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jamil Shah, Tagore Sunkara, Krishna Sowjanya Yarlagadda, Prashanth Rawla, Vinaya Gaduputi

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGastrostomyPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomyEnteral administrationGastric outlet obstructionSurgeryFeeding tubeGastrostomy tubeTube (container)ComplicationParenteral nutritionGeneral surgeryPEG ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a well-recognized procedure for providing enteral feeding and long-term enteral nutritional support. Although it is mostly well tolerated, complications, sometimes mechanical in nature, do occur. Rare, and often initially unrecognized, late complications of PEG tube placement are gastric outlet obstruction and duodenal obstruction. Simple adjustment of the gastrostomy tube will lead to the improvement of the patient's clinical condition and prevent further complications. Physicians should be aware of and suspect gastric outlet and duodenal obstruction as rare late complications of PEG tube placement. Simple adjustment of the gastrostomy tube can resolve the problem without unnecessary medical tests and overly aggressive care. Here, we present two interesting cases of elderly women who developed mechanical obstruction after inadvertent migration of the gastrostomy tube.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207