MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390938860 · doi:10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_71_23

Cosmetic Results in Transumbilical Resection of Patent Vitellointestinal Duct in Infants

2024· article· en· W4390938860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Atreyee Sarkar, Vivek Gharpure

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCosmesisUmbilicus (mollusc)SurgeryEnterotomyWedge resectionDuct (anatomy)ResectionGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vitellointestinal duct (VID) malformation in infants is a congenital anomaly of the gastrointestinal tract, with an incidence of about 2%, with complete patency in <0.1% of the population. It connects the midgut to the yolk sac. It regresses between the 5th and 9th weeks of gestation.[1] We present a case series of 13 patients with completely patent VID who presented with mucosal swelling at the umbilicus [Figure 1b]. These patients were managed surgically by the transumbilical route [Figure 1a]. There was adequate exposure to carry out the surgical correction by transumbilical route [Figure 1c]. The natural healing of the umbilicus was observed without doing any umbilical reconstruction. Postoperative scar showed a normal-looking umbilicus [Figure 1d]. According to Vancouver scar scaling, the postoperative scar score was 0, with satisfied patient relatives regarding cosmesis. It presents as an umbilical discharge which may be serous/feces/red umbilical mass, and excision of the tract is necessary.[2] Transumbilical resection of the patent VID can be achieved without fascial extension, and leaving the umbilicus alone will provide excellent cosmesis.Figure 1: (a) Wedge resection of patent vitellointestinal duct (VID). (b) Patent VID presenting as an umbilical mass. (c). Intraoperative appearance of VID. (d). Postoperative appearanceFinancial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Indian Association of Pediatric SurgeonsSame topicGastrointestinal disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207