Fluoroscopic‐Guided Removal of Jejunal Sharp Foreign Body: An Alternative Approach to Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction . Foreign body (FB) ingestion represents a frequently encountered scenario in clinical practice. Most ingested FBs typically pass spontaneously, requiring no intervention. Endoscopic removal stands out as the least invasive method, with only a minimal 1% needing surgical intervention. Case Presentation . We present a case of a 30‐year‐old male who ingested multiple FBs located in the stomach and small bowel. While successful removal of the stomach FB was achieved through endoscopy, the second FB in the small bowel proved challenging due to perforation concerns and limited expertise. Given a history of prior surgical intervention resulting in a large incisional hernia, surgical removal was discouraged. Consequently, a collaborative decision involving surgeon and interventional radiologist (IR) led to the adoption of a fluoroscopic‐guided removal approach facilitated by IR techniques. Conclusion . This case highlights the potential for a less invasive alternative in situations where both endoscopic and surgical interventions are deemed not feasible.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".