Post-discharge follow-up of congenital duodenal obstruction patients: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract PURPOSE Long-term follow-up of congenital duodenal obstruction patients often falls on care providers with little experience of this condition. We performed a systematic review of the long-term outcomes of duodenal obstruction and provide a summary of sequelae care providers should anticipate. METHODS In 2022, after registering with PROSPERA, Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, PSYCHINFO, CNAHL and SCOPUS databases were searched using the title keyword ‘intestinal atresia’. Abstracts were filtered for inclusion if they included the duodenum. Papers of filtered abstracts were included if they reported post-discharge outcomes. Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies was used to grade the papers. RESULTS Of the 1068 abstracts were screened, 32 papers were reviewed. Eleven studies were included. Thirty additional papers were included after reviewing references, for a total of 41 papers. The average MINORS was 7/16. CONCLUSIONS There is good evidence that children with congenital duodenal obstruction do well in terms of survival, growth and general well-being. Associated cardiac, musculoskeletal and renal anomalies should be ruled-out. Care providers should be aware of anastomotic dysfunction, blind loop syndrome, bowel obstruction and reflux. Reflux may be asymptomatic. Laparoscopic repair does not change long-term outcomes, and associated Trisomy 21 worsens neurodevelopmental outcomes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".