MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210724960 · doi:10.1097/pg9.0000000000000134

Celiac Plexus Block to Treat Refractory Feed Induced Dystonia in Children with Severe Neurodisability

2021· article· en· W3210724960 on OpenAlexaff
David I. Campbell, Rosalind M. Rabone, A Fadilah, Ashok Raghavan, Arun Urs, Ayman Eissa, Richard Lindley, Santosh Mordekar

Bibliographic record

VenueJPGN Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sept Iles
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurolysisMedicineRefractory (planetary science)BlockadeDystoniaAnesthesiaSurgeryPlexusNeuromuscular BlockadeParenteral nutritionSingle CenterPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This observational study describes the procedure technique, safety outcomes, and patient responses to celiac plexus blockade (CPB) in children with severe neurodisability with refractory feed intolerance, feed induced pain or feed induced dystonia (FID). Method: A review of the pathophysiological response to feeding in children with significant neurodisability and the effect on the neuroenteric system. A 2-stage CT-guided temporary celiac plexus blockade followed by neurolysis technique is described. We compile a case series of 5 patients with life limiting conditions and significant disability undergoing CPB in a single tertiary pediatric hospital. Results: A total of 10 separate procedures in 5 children were completed. A positive outcome was observed in 3 out of 4 cases of pediatric FID. Two of the three patients on parenteral nutrition had improved feed tolerance postprocedure. All children tolerated the procedure well, no postprocedure complications were documented. Conclusions: In selected cases, children with life-threatening feed induced dystonia or effective intestinal failure can be safely treated with celiac plexus blockade when other therapies have failed.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJPGN ReportsSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207