MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249749043 · doi:10.7759/cureus.8051

Acute Appendicitis: Clinical Clues and Conundrums Related to the Greatest Misses

2020· article· en· W4249749043 on OpenAlexaff
Ricki Brown-Forestiere, Anthony Furiato, Nikolas P Foresteire, John Kashani, Abdül Waheed

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsBrandon Regional Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAppendicitisAcute appendicitisIntensive care medicineGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction In the United States (US), appendicitis is the most common acute abdominal emergency requiring surgery. Patients with appendicitis continue to display a complex and atypical range of clinical manifestations, providing a subsequent high risk for emergency physicians to miss acute abdominal pathology on a patient's initial visits. Due to the risk of potential perforation, the proper and timely clinical identification of acute appendicitis is vital. The current study aims to identify clinical characteristics that could be useful in identifying patients at risk for having acute appendicitis that was misdiagnosed on their initial visits. Methods Medical charts consisting of patients between the ages of 19 and 55 years on their second visit were flagged and reviewed by the emergency department quality assurance (EDQA) committee. The retrospective chart review included patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with the chief complaint of an abdominal-related complaint, were discharged, returned within 72 hours, and were diagnosed with a pathologically confirmed appendicitis. All patients were managed operatively, with pathology results reviewed for evidence of acute appendicitis. Those with confirmed pathologic appendicitis upon return were considered to have a "misdiagnosis." Any patients managed nonoperatively and those with negative pathology were excluded from the study and considered not to have appendicitis. Results Fifty-five patients were identified through the EDQA committee from May 2011 to January 2014. After exclusion criteria were applied, 18 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study (7 males, 11 females). The mean age was 36.2 (range: 19-55). The most common presenting complaint on the initial visit was pain in the epigastric region of the abdomen (50%, n = 9). Twenty-two percent (n = 4) of patients had pain in the right lower quadrant documented in the physician's note on the initial visit and 83% (n = 15) had right lower quadrant pain documented on the second visit. Two patients (11%) did not have right lower quadrant tenderness on either visit. The most common discharge diagnosis on the initial visit was undifferentiated abdominal pain (50%), followed by gastritis (28%). Opioid pain medication was administered or prescribed to 39% (n = 7) of the patients. The average return time was 23.9 hours. Conclusion The administration of opioid pain medication is associated with many of the return visits to the emergency department for missed appendicitis. Finally, discharge diagnosis and planning are imperative, as detailed early appendicitis instructions or extended ED observation can include more cases and decrease litigation risk.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207