Pilot Study: Outcomes of the Full Abdominopelvic Ultrasound Protocol for Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis in Children: A Retrospective Chart Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Sonographic evaluation for acute appendicitis in children often involves an exhaustive protocol, for which the therapeutic yield has not been formally evaluated. The purpose of the study was to pilot a retrospective chart review of children receiving an abdominopelvic sonogram upon presenting with suspected acute appendicitis. Methods: An annual retrospective chart review was designed to review abdominopelvic sonograms to rule out appendicitis and specifically performed at a Canadian children’s teaching hospital. Studies were excluded if the requisition stated multiple clinical concerns or if the patient was >18 years at the time of the sonogram. Results: Based on 230 patient cases reviewed, alternative diagnostic sonographic findings were found in 141 (61%) charts. Only 18 patient cases (8%) demonstrated both alternative sonographic findings as well as a change in management by the emergency room physician. Conclusion: Alternative diagnostic findings, based on a complete abdominopelvic sonogram, were common (61%) in this chart review but rarely changed 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".