MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790303303 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxx210

Failing to thrive, abdominal pain and vomiting: A hairy situation

2018· editorial· en· W2790303303 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria A Au, Jonathan P. Wong, Isvarya Venu, Rosemary Moodie, Yousef Etoom, Lukas Kieswetter, J Ted Gerstle, Peter Wong

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationSt Joseph's Health CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFailure to thriveVomitingAbdominal painMedicineAnesthesiaSurgeryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 5-year-old boy presented with a 3-day history of crampy abdominal pain, nonbilious vomiting and obstipation. There was no history of abnormal stools, fever or dysuria. After a healthy pregnancy, the child’s birth weight and height were 3.26 kg (25th percentile) and 50 cm (50th percentile), respectively. There were no behavioural or developmental concerns. The child had a well-varied diet in early childhood; however, he demonstrated picky-eating and early satiety 1 year prior to presentation. There was no history of recurrent trichophagia or balding, although at 2 years of age, he was noticed to eat his hair on two occasions. At 3 years of age, his growth velocity decreased which was attributed to his family’s petite characteristics. At 4 years of age, his weight had decreased to the 0.1 to 3rd percentile. He complained of nonspecific abdominal pain and vomiting. An abdominal ultrasound revealed fecal impaction of the large bowel. Treatment with laxatives, a balanced diet and fluids relieved his symptoms until his presentation at 5 years of age.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0320.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicIntestinal and Peritoneal AdhesionsFrench-language works237,207