Utility of Enteral Contrast Protocols in Pediatric Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the utility of enteral contrast-based protocols in the diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) for children. BACKGROUND: Enteral contrast-based protocols for adults with ASBO are associated with a decreased need for surgery and shorter hospitalization. Pediatric-specific data are limited. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study between October 2020 and December 2022 at 9 children's hospitals that are members of the Western Pediatric Surgery Research Consortium. Inclusion criteria were children aged 1 to 20 years diagnosed with ASBO who underwent a trial of nonoperative management at hospital admission. Comparisons were made between those children who received an enteral contrast challenge and those who did not. The primary outcome was the need for surgery. RESULTS: We enrolled 136 children (71% male; median age: 12 years); 84 (62%) received an enteral contrast challenge. There was no difference in the rate of operative intervention between the no-contrast (34.6%) and contrast groups (36.9%; P =0.93). Eighty-seven (64%) were successfully managed nonoperatively with no difference in median length of stay ( P =0.10) or rate of unplanned readmission ( P =0.14). Among the 49 children who required an operation, there was no significant difference in the time from admission to surgery or rate of small bowel resection based on prior contrast administration. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of enteral contrast-based protocols for the management of pediatric ASBO does not decrease the likelihood of surgery or shorten hospitalization. Larger randomized studies may be needed to further define the role of radiologic contrast in the management of ASBO in children.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".