First splenic rupture following an endoscopic esophageal myotomy: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The occurrence of splenic rupture is extremely rare during an upper gastro-intestinal endoscopy. Although infrequent, splenic rupture is a known complication secondary to colonoscopy. However, occurrence of splenic rupture after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has never been reported to date. CASE SUMMARY: We describe a case of a splenic rupture following a POEM for recurrent achalasia in a patient who previously had a Heller myotomy. Splenic rupture remains very uncommon after an upper gastro-intestinal endoscopic procedure. The most plausible cause for this rare splenic injury appears to be the stretching of the gastro-splenic ligament during the endoscopy. A previous surgery may be a risk factor contributing to this complication. CONCLUSION: The possibility for the occurrence of specific complications, such as splenic rupture, does exist even with the development of advanced endoscopic procedures, as presented in the present case after POEM.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".