MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250931255 · doi:10.14740/jmc2266w

Retroperitoneal, Abdominal, and Pelvic Abscess in Appendicitis: The Limitation of Diagnostic Modalities

2015· article· en· W4250931255 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rafay Khan, Sunil Tulpule, Kalyani Regeti, Mohammad Amir Hossain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAppendicitisLaparotomyPeritonitisExploratory laparotomyAbscessRadiologyPresentation (obstetrics)SurgeryGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute appendicitis is a common and well-recognized condition that can be easily managed. However, at times it can become significantly complicated and thus life-threatening. Acute appendicitis can present atypically with findings such as peritonitis and even abdominal abscesses. During laparotomy it is highly unusual to find signs of peritonitis that were not initially visualized by abdominal imaging studies consisting of retroperitoneal and pelvic abscesses. In this case report, we describe the diagnosis and management of a 62-year-old female discovered to have several retroperitoneal abdominal and pelvic abscesses complicated by peritonitis discovered during exploratory laparotomy at the time of appendectomy. The presentation of appendicitis has been associated with abdominal abscesses and peritonitis; however, these findings may at times not be seen using CT imaging. Furthermore, retroperitoneal abscess is a relatively uncommon finding associated with appendicitis. Through this report, we plan to illustrate the importance of not neglecting the possibility of particular intra-abdominal and extra-abdominal inflammatory conditions which may arise during the surgical management of appendicitis. J Med Cases. 2015;6(9):430-432 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jmc2266w

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207