Button battery taping prevents oesophageal injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Most button battery (BB) ingestions in children are unwitnessed leading to prolonged exposures and severe complications. One third of ingestions occur from free BB, that are stored or awaiting disposal. Recommendations have been made to cover the terminals of discarded BB with adhesive tape; however, it is unclear if this practice prevents injury. Our aim was to determine if tape could prevent oesophageal injury in a cadaveric porcine model. METHODS: Electrical, masking, packing and duct tape were compared. One BB was left untaped. Taped BBs were placed in a cadaveric porcine oesophagus controlled for temperature and humidification. Specimens were assessed at 0, 0.5, and hourly for 6 h by visual inspection, temperature and pH. BB voltage was measured before and after testing. All tests were repeated in triplicate. RESULTS: Oesophageal specimens demonstrated burn prevention in the packing and duct tape trials. Burns were seen in 2/3 trials with electrical tape and 3/3 trials with masking tape. pH remained neutral throughout the study for all packing and duct tape specimens. pH remained neutral initially for masking tape but increased rapidly to 12 by 2 h. There was no change in battery voltage for the packing tape and duct tape trials. There was a 16.3% reduction in voltage for masking tape which was similar to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Taping BB with packing tape and duct tape prevented oesophageal burns. This may provide a novel method of burn prevention for loose BB intended for disposal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".