Chest Radiograph Alone Is Sufficient as the Foreign Body Survey for Children Presenting With Coin Ingestion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Radiographic survey of the entire aerodigestive tract (nares to anus) is common practice in children presenting to the emergency department following coin ingestion. The purpose of our study was to determine the optimal protocol for radiographic survey post-coin ingestion. We hypothesized that for children presenting with a clear history of coin ingestion a frontal chest radiograph including the entire esophagus is adequate to guide treatment. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical history and radiographic surveys of 134 patients presenting with suspected or witnessed coin ingestion to the emergency department of a tertiary care pediatric hospital between January 2012 and June 2016. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms, anatomic coverage of survey, type, number and location of radiopaque foreign bodies, intervention, and follow-up were recorded. RESULTS: Coins were identified on radiographic surveys in 109 of 134 patients; 25 of 134 patients had no coin. Of those with coins, none of 109 had coin(s) in the airway, 42 of 109 had coin(s) in the esophagus, and 67 of 109 had coin(s) distal to the esophagus. Of those with esophageal coins, 35 of 42 reported symptoms, 7 of 42 were asymptomatic, 40 of 42 underwent endoscopic coin removal, and 2 of 42 had no intervention. Of 92 of 134 surveyed patients with no coin or coin distal to the esophagus, 30 of 92 reported symptoms, 62 of 92 were asymptomatic, 90 of 92 had no further intervention, and 2 of 92 eventually underwent endoscopic coin removal for specific indications (abdominal pain, delayed passage). When there was no coin found in the esophagus, the negative predictive value for intervention was 97.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Following a clear history of coin ingestion, a frontal chest radiograph including the entire length of the esophagus provides sufficient information to direct patient management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".