Is Oral Contrast Beneficial for Visualization of the Appendix in Low-Weight Children?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: It has been shown that oral contrast does not improve the diagnostic accuracy of Computed Tomography (CT) for appendicitis in pediatric patients; however, the cohorts in these studies were not stratified by weight or body mass index. The purpose of this study is to assess the benefit of oral contrast administration for identifying the appendix in younger children in the lower weight quartile. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study comprised 100 patients (2–10 years) in lower weight quartile who had intravenous contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis, 37 of which with oral contrast, and 63 without. A pediatric radiologist and a pediatric radiology fellow independently assessed whether the appendix was visualized or not. In case of discrepancy, an additional pediatric radiologist was the “tie-breaker.” Chi-squared test was used to compare the proportion of visualized appendix between the groups (with and without oral contrast). Inter-rater reliability was determined using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Results: There was no significant difference in the visualization of the appendix between the group with oral contrast and without ( P = 1). The Cohen Kappa coefficients were .33 (.05, .62) and .91 (.73, 1.00) for the “no oral” and “oral” groups, respectively, yielding evidence of a difference ( P = .007). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the visualization of the appendix using CT with or without oral contrast in low-weight pediatric patients. The inter-rater reliability, however, was significantly higher in the group given oral contrast. Additional studies assessing the value of oral contrast for the sole indication of appendicitis may provide clearer results.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".