When Omental Infarction Imitates Appendicitis: Advancing Diagnosis with POCUS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A previously healthy 12-year-old boy presented to the paediatric emergency department on three occasions in the space of four days with progressive right iliac fossa pain. His presentation appeared consistent with appendicitis; however, blood tests remained normal at each presentation. Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) revealed significant inflammatory changes in the right lower quadrant along with free fluid. Due to worsening pain and advancing findings on POCUS, the patient underwent a diagnostic laparoscopy which identified a normal appendix but had features consistent with omental infarction. Omental infarction is a rare condition that can mimic appendicitis, with few recorded cases in the literature. This is the first documented case of POCUS being utilised in the evaluation of a child with omental infarction. While the patient's diagnosis was less common than initially suspected, POCUS played a crucial role in guiding timely and effective patient care, highlighting its value in clinical decision-making However, there are indications of lower POCUS sensitivity to fluid overload with a full peritoneum.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".