Omental Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the prevalence of omental infarction (OI) in children with suspected appendicitis, the role of ultrasonography (US) in its diagnosis and management and the efficacy of conservative management. Methods Consecutive children with suspected acute appendicitis were prospectively enrolled. Ultrasonography was performed at baseline, during follow-up, before the discharge, and at 15-day intervals until US findings of OI disappeared. All children with a diagnosis of OI were treated conservatively. Results One hundred ninety-nine children (91 male; age range, 3–15 years) were evaluated. Eighty-four patients had acute appendicitis. Omental infarctions were found in 14 children (8 male; mean age, 9.8 ± 2.6 years), with an incidence of 7%. Ultrasonography depicted an echogenic mass consistent with OI in all children. Ultrasonography detected in 8 patients a normal-looking appendix, whereas in other 6 patients, it identified neither appendix nor indirect signs of acute appendicitis. A normal appendix has been detected by US during follow-up in 2 of these 6 patients. During follow-up, US finding of OI disappeared in all cases and no signs of acute appendicitis or other disease occurred. All 14 OIs were treated conservatively, with no reported complications. Conclusions Omental infarction is an underestimated cause of abdominal pain in children accounting for 7% of patients with suspected appendicitis. Ultrasonography is a useful method for the diagnoses and to guide clinical management of OI. Conservative therapy is a safe option for the management of OI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".