MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969511859 · doi:10.14740/gr1191

Barium Retention Following Examination for Pylorus Stenosis

2019· article· en· W2969511859 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michal Slašťan, Dušan Dobrota

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePylorusBariumBarium mealStenosisBarium sulfateComplicationRadiologySurgeryStomachInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barium retention is a rare complication of upper gastrointestinal tract examination when using barium sulphate as a contrast agent. We present a case of rare barium retention and precipitation in the stomach in terrain of chronic gastrostasis and the review of literature on complications of barium sulphate administration. A 38-year-old patient was diagnosed with benign pylorostenosis. After consulting radiology department barium contrast-enhanced X-ray has been indicated. The diagnostic process and the resulting treatment of the complications are described. Patient's informed consent was obtained. The use of barium sulphate as a contrast agent led to stasis and impaction of the contrast agent, which led to emergency surgery. Histology proved malignant stenosis of the pylorus. The resection edges proved insufficient and a repeated resection was performed. At the time of submission the patient has no confirmed metastatic lesions. In cases of suspected gastrostasis and serious stenosis of the intestine, use of barium sulphate should be avoided and iodine-based contrast agents should be used instead.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicGastrointestinal disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207