MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796391336 · doi:10.14740/gr966w

Trans-Hepatic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube Placement: A Case Report of A Rare Complication and Literature Review

2018· article· en· W2796391336 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anuj Chhaparia, Muhammad B. Hammami, Juri Bassuner, Christine Hachem

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomySurgeryComplicationEnteral administrationFeeding tubeParenteral nutritionPercutaneousAbdomenAccidental fallHematomaPEG ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes have emerged as the standard of care for long-term enteral feeding. This procedure is relatively safe; however, complications do occur, and one of the most dreaded complications is trauma to the surrounding organs. Hepatic injury during PEG placement is an extremely rare complication of the PEG procedure, with a handful of cases described in the medical literature. We describe the case of an accidental trans-hepatic placement of a PEG tube in a 78-year-old morbidly obese female, even with excellent trans-illumination and manual external pressure achieved during endoscopic placement. Post-procedure, cross-sectional imaging of the abdomen showed a gastrostomy tube traversing the lateral margin of the liver with adjacent small hematoma. Physical exam was unremarkable for abdominal tenderness or guarding/rigidity, and no blood or drainage was noted at the site of PEG insertion. Enteral nutrition was started after 24 h of PEG tube insertion and patient tolerated well with no complications. The patient was discharged to a nursing home but unfortunately died the following week to an unknown cause.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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