A241 A REVIEW OF 101 CHILDREN WITH GASTRO-JEJUNAL FEEDING TUBES INCLUDING THEIR COMPLICATIONS AT BC CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".