Bibliographic record
Abstract
As physicians with a keen interest in gastrostomy, we were interested to read about Raakow and colleagues' experience with laparoscopic gastrostomy [ 1 ], but we were surprised by the inexplicable absence from their discussion of radiologic gastrostomy as a viable option for feeding tube placement. Radiologists in our department have been performing fluoroscopically guided gastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy on an almost daily basis for the last 17 years. Even if radiologic gastrostomy is unavailable to Raakow et al., we believe that it warrants inclusion in their discussion. Most importantly, we strongly disagree with the authors' assertion that an inability to pass an endoscope makes surgical gastrostomy mandatory. Radiologic techniques easily cross strictures that do not permit passage of endoscopes. Furthermore, passage of an orogastric or nasogastric tube is not necessary for safe and successful radiologic gastrostomy [ 2 ]. Radiologic gastrostomy, performed under local anesthesia, is effective and successful, with safety equal to or greater than endoscopic gastrostomy [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ]. Laparoscopic techniques are not as safe. Invasive techniques such as surgery or laparoscopy cannot be justified for gastrostomy alone.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".