MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133933215 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab002.239

A241 A REVIEW OF 101 CHILDREN WITH GASTRO-JEJUNAL FEEDING TUBES INCLUDING THEIR COMPLICATIONS AT BC CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL.

2021· review· en· W3133933215 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntestinal Malrotation and Obstruction Disorders
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDemographicsPediatricsGeneral surgerySurgeryDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The use of GastroJejunal Tubes (GJTs) is an increasingly common method for providing post-pyloric enteral nutrition in pediatric patients. Aims To describe the patients with GJT including the indication, comorbidities including by system, as well as tube related complications. Methods The charts of 101 patients who had a GJT over a one-year period (2019–20) were retrospectively reviewed including demographics, medical diagnoses, information about tube placement, maintenance, and complications including malposition, balloon failure, blockages, and leakages / breaks. Results The top indications for GJT are aspiration and GERD. 73.3% have >3 system comorbidities (ie CNS, GI, Resp). Mean age of GJT placement was 43 months. 78% remain on a PPI and 24% are on a prokinetic. 24% continue to eat some amount orally. Over this one-year period, 92% continue with a GJT (mean duration 4 years, max 15), 4% have reverted back to a G-tube, 1% had a surgical J tube placed, and 3% died (not due to the GJT). Following initial placement, these 101 patients underwent 1194 GJT related procedures, (417 urgent changes, 777 routine changes) with 98.3% technical success. Patients needed an average of one urgent repair per year (3.2/1000 GJT days) and the majority of patients required >1 emergency visit. Those with routine GJT changes seem to have fewer urgent repairs (Figure 1). Conclusions Children with GJT represent a growing complex patient population. GJT are being used for the longer term. Routine maintenance seems supported by our data although doesn’t prevent the need for urgent repairs or other complications. Frameworks and guidelines are needed for this essential technology to improve clinical care. Funding Agencies None

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.255 · 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