Management of Gastroschisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In infants with gastroschisis, outcomes were compared between those where operative reduction and fascial closure were attempted ≤24 hours of age (PC), and those who underwent planned closure of their defect >24 hours of age following reduction with a pre-formed silo (SR). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Inadequate evidence exists to determine how best to treat infants with gastroschisis. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted of data collected 2006-2008 using the British Association of Pediatric Surgeons Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System, and 2005-2016 using the Canadian Pediatric Surgery Network.28-day outcomes were compared between infants undergoing PC and SR. Primary outcome was number of gastrointestinal complications. Interactions were investigated between infant characteristics and treatment to determine whether intervention effect varied in sub-groups of infants. RESULTS: Data from 341 British and Irish infants (27%) and 927 Canadian infants (73%) were used. 671 infants (42%) underwent PC and 597 (37%) underwent SR. The effect of SR on outcome varied according to the presence/absence of intestinal perforation, intestinal matting and intestinal necrosis. In infants without these features, SR was associated with fewer gastrointestinal complications [aIRR 0.25 (95% CI 0.09-0.67, P = 0.006)], more operations [aIRR 1.40 (95% CI 1.22-1.60, P < 0.001)], more days PN [aIRR 1.08 (95% CI 1.03-1.13, P < 0.001)], and a higher infection risk [aOR 2.06 (95% CI 1.10-3.87, P = 0.025)]. In infants with these features, SR was associated with a greater number of operations [aIRR 1.30 (95% CI 1.17-1.45, P < 0.001)], and more days PN [aIRR 1.06 (95% CI 1.02-1.10, P = 0.003)]. CONCLUSIONS: In infants without intestinal perforation, matting, or necrosis, the benefits of SR outweigh its drawbacks. In infants with these features, the opposite is true. Treatment choice should be based upon these features.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".