Diagnostic Workup of Neonates With Esophageal Atresia: Results From the EUPSA Esophageal Atresia Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Controversies exist on the optimal diagnostic workup for neonates with esophageal atresia (EA) with/without tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF). Aim of this study was to describe the current diagnostic policies in EA/TEF patients enrolled in an International multicenter registry. Methods: All patients consecutively registered from July 2014 to December 2017 in the EUPSA Esophageal Atresia Registry (EUPSA-EAR) were included in the study. Data related to diagnostic investigations among Centres forming the EUPSA-EAR were analyzed. Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test were used as appropriate. Main results: During the study period, 374 consecutive patients were recorded by 23 Centers. The majority of patients underwent chest X rays, echocardiography, abdominal ultrasound, and abdominal X rays. Preoperative bronchoscopy and esophageal gap measurement were performed in one third of the patients. Conclusions: Present data from a large cohort of patients from the EUPSA- EAR show both inter-institutional and intra-institutional variability in diagnostic workup of patients with EA/TEF. Efforts should be made to develop guidelines on the diagnostic workup for EA/TEF patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".