Evolving threat of pediatric ingestions: a discussion of cannabis and button batteries and their implications for children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pediatric button battery and cannabis ingestions are rising in incidence and have the potential for significant harm. This review will focus on the clinical presentation and complications of these two common inadvertent ingestions in children, as well as recent regulatory efforts and advocacy opportunities. RECENT FINDINGS: The rising incidence of cannabis toxicity in children has corresponded with its legalization across several countries in the last decade. Inadvertent pediatric cannabis intoxication is most commonly due to the ingestion of edible forms discovered by children in their own home. The clinical presentation can be nonspecific, therefore clinicians should have a low threshold for including it on their differential diagnosis. Button battery ingestions are also increasing in incidence. While many children are asymptomatic at presentation, button battery ingestions can quickly cause esophageal injury and lead to several serious and potentially life-threatening complications. Prompt recognition and removal of esophageal button batteries is essential for reducing harm. SUMMARY: Cannabis and button battery ingestions are important for physicians who take care of children to recognize and manage appropriately. Given their rising incidence, there are many opportunities for policy improvements and advocacy efforts to make a difference in preventing these ingestions altogether.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".