MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3149774040 · doi:10.1016/j.ijso.2021.100338

Bedside pressure-pain threshold algometry to measure abdominal tenderness in childhood appendicitis: A retrospective cohort study

2021· article· en· W3149774040 on OpenAlexafffund
Ray Postuma, Glen Vajcner, Ronald B. Postuma, Richard Keijzer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
FundersChildren’s Hospital Foundation of Manitoba
KeywordsMedicineAppendicitisTendernessAbdominal painPerforationRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Introduction: Abdominal wall tenderness and its localization are key diagnostic features of appendicitis. However, abdominal wall tenderness assessment is subjective, and its utility in the diagnostic discrimination of appendicitis is limited. The objective of this study is to assess whether measuring abdominal tenderness using algometry can improve the clinical assessment of children with suspected appendicitis. Methods: Using a spring-gauge, pocket-size algometer, similar to a tire gauge, we measured abdominal wall pressure-pain thresholds and tenderness localization ratios in children with suspected appendicitis referred to one pediatric general surgeon. We correlated the results with the final diagnosis, standard diagnostic scores, and abdominal ultrasound. Results: Of 557 children with suspected appendicitis, 421 (76%) had algometry measurements of whom 239 (57%) underwent appendectomy. Appendicitis was confirmed in 216 (90%); appendicitis prevalence 51%. Pressure-pain thresholds were significantly lower and tenderness localization ratios higher in appendicitis. The difference was greatest with perforation: maximum AUC 0.884 overall, in males AUC 0.935. During observation, pressure-pain thresholds decreased while tenderness localization ratio increased in appendicitis patients, signaling increasing tenderness and more precise localization for appendicitis. The reverse was observed for non-appendicitis patients. Localization ratios were superior to the two standard diagnostic appendicitis scores (Algometry AUC = 0.844; Alvarado AUC = 0.790, pediatric appendicitis score AUC = 0.760) and white blood cell count alone (AUC = 0.728). Algometry results yielded positive and negative predictive values up to 100%. Conclusion: Bedside measurements of abdominal wall tenderness outperformed individual clinical and laboratory parameters and appendicitis diagnostic scores in identifying acute appendicitis. If validated and given its ease, algometry has the potential for incorporation into clinical practice, documentation, and as a quantifiable tenderness measure for use in clinical research. Highlights

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Surgery OpenSame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207