Retropharyngeal and parapharyngeal infections in children: A retrospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe presentations, management and outcomes of retropharyngeal and parapharyngeal infections in children presenting to a tertiary care pediatric emergency department. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of children with deep neck infections such as retropharyngeal or parapharyngeal infection from January 2008 to December 2018 was conducted at a pediatric hospital. RESULTS: There were 176 retropharyngeal, 18 parapharyngeal and 6 with both retropharyngeal and parapharyngeal infections treated during the 10-year study period. Males were 60% of the cohort and the mean age was 4.3 (SD: 3.2) years. No significant differences in age or sex ratio or presentations were seen in children with retropharyngeal infections compared with parapharyngeal infections. All received parenteral antibiotics; 42% (84/200) of children underwent surgery and four of them had more than one surgical drainage. Age <12 months and the diagnosis of parapharyngeal infections were associated with significantly higher rates of surgical treatment. Children under 12 months of age were sicker at presentation and had a high complication rate of 23% compared with 1% in the older children (p = 0.002). Seven children had co-existence of Kawasaki disease with deep neck infections. CONCLUSIONS: Early diagnosis of retropharyngeal and parapharyngeal infections especially in infants under a year of age is important as they are more likely to have complications and need surgical management. Most paediatric patients with retropharyngeal and parapharyngeal infections have a phlegmon or very small abscesses and are treated non-operatively with parenteral antibiotics.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".