MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390011456 · doi:10.11648/j.ajp.20230902.18

Atypical Appendicitis in Children: Clinical Presentation, Imaging Features, and Management Plan

2023· article· en· W4390011456 on OpenAlexaff
Gihad Alsaeed, Ali H. Alassiri, Tamer Rizk, Anas Alshamali, Suhib Alsaeed, Mohamed Aslaeed, L. Bakri

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Pediatrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)AppendicitisPlan (archaeology)MedicineGeneral surgeryRadiologyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atypical appendicitis is not uncommon in pediatrics. Factors that are usually seen in such presentations include: Age less than five years, developmental delay, ectopic anatomic location of the appendix, subacute or chronic appendicitis, and symptomatic treatment in addition to early inconclusive investigations. Children with Autistic spectrum disorder often suffer from communication problems, which might affect their ability to deliver their complaints effectively. It is usually parent’s interpretation that physicians will rely on as they are the best to delineate minor changes of their children’s behavior and body language signs, so that a correct diagnosis may be reached. Atypical appendicitis is usually a delayed diagnosis with increased morbidity and mortality. In this paper we illustrate the possible causes of atypical appendicitis in childhood, and review its clinical presentation, radiologic findings, and management plan as mentioned in medical literature. We also present a rare case of subacute appendicitis in a 5 years old autistic girl with atypical presentation, misleading imaging features, and re-admission after successful laparoscopy. Our aim is to present the importance of clinical assessment and suggest an approach to improve practice regarding childhood appendicitis which can be an endless trap for both patients and practitioners.

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)0.000
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 score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PediatricsSame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207