MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199320114 · doi:10.1136/wjps-2021-000284

Use of a neoprene binding to reduce giant omphaloceles followed by delayed closure

2021· article· en· W3199320114 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Lelj‐Garolla, L.C. Campbell, Jaideep Kanungo, Naomi Yoshida

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Pediatric Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
Canadian institutionsVictoria General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOmphaloceleAbdominoplastyAbdominal wallAbdominal wall defectSurgeryGestational agePediatricsPlastic surgeryBiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Omphaloceles occur in about 1 in 5000 births and are the second most common congenital abdominal wall defects.1 Repair remains a surgeon’s preference with early closure only attempted for small-to-medium omphaloceles, while delayed closure is used for giant omphaloceles.2–4 In recent years, novel techniques that aim at reducing the disproportion between the abdominal cavity and the volume of the extra-abdominal viscera have been described to manage giant omphaloceles.4–17 Although less commonly associated with genetic abnormalities, giant omphaloceles are associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years.18 In addition to gestational age, birth weight, associated malformation, resuscitation and hypoxia, other factors including prolonged stay in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), time on ventilation, infections, and delayed establishment of enteral nutrition are likely contributory factors.19 This is a case study of two infants with giant omphaloceles treated in our institution with a novel neoprene binder preoperatively. The binder allows for gradual reduction of the viscera below the level of the skin followed by early fascia closure. Families were contacted for a follow-up survey about parental experience and satisfaction in March–July 2020. A summary of the demographic and outcomes is reported in table 1. View this table: Table 1 Summary of patient’s demographic and outcomes Both infants had giant omphaloceles2 3 larger than 5 cm with most of the liver and bowel in the sac. Neither had other major abnormalities nor genetic disorders. After delivery, infants were wrapped in a plastic bag to protect the omphalocele sac and were transferred to NICU for initial care. Infants did not require sedation or intubation, and enteral feeds were started on day 1 of life, with 5 and 11 days, respectively, of concomitant parenteral nutrition until full enteral feeds were established. Immediately postnatally, the intact sac was cleaned and dressed with Restore silver dressing …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Pediatric SurgerySame topicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal SurgeryFrench-language works237,207