Pediatric ingestion of multiple ball magnets leading to intestinal perforation: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE: Ingestion of foreign bodies is a relatively common cause of abdominal pain in the emergency department among pediatric patients. A less common but potentially life-threatening ingestion is that of magnets. PRESENTATION OF CASE: Here, we report the case of a 6-year-old female who ingested 7 ball magnets in a rural town in Brazil and presented with a 4-day history of abdominal pain. Surgical approach was necessary in this case. It consisted of midline laparotomy that revealed one small intestinal perforation of the antimesenteric aspect of the small bowel. The magnets were attached to each other and were retrieved through the perforated intestinal wall. Resection of the necrosed borders of the perforated wall was followed by single-plan extra-mucosal enterorrhaphy of the lesion. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: The magnets took on a linear configuration which led to the overlap and obstruction of a loop of the small bowel, with ischemia and perforation of the intestinal wall. CONCLUSION: Ingestion of magnets is an unusual event that can lead to increased risks of intestinal mechanical obstruction, and intestinal perforation. Previous research shows that other complications such as fistulas and volvulus can also occur and that patients with this presentation might develop peritonitis, resulting in death if not timely treated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".