MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416959819 · doi:10.1136/bcr-2025-268821

Oral scald injury misdiagnosed as oral thrush in a newborn

2025· article· en· W4416959819 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNeonatal skin health care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysphagiaRespiratory distressSwallowingThrushEmergency departmentDifferential diagnosisOral cavityDistress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A neonate with a history of a brief resolved unexplained event presented to the emergency department with white oral plaques initially diagnosed as thrush and treated with nystatin. He subsequently developed progressive feeding difficulties and respiratory distress requiring supplemental oxygen. Despite treatment with fluconazole and supportive care, symptoms persisted. Multiple swallow studies revealed frank aspiration, delayed swallow initiation and poor oral motor control. Diagnostic investigation, including MRI brain and flexible nasal laryngoscopy, revealed no structural anomalies. A breakthrough occurred when nursing staff were notified that the infant had been bottle-fed hot milk prior to symptom onset. The diagnosis of oral thermal burns leading to dysphagia and aspiration pneumonitis was made. With multidisciplinary therapy, swallow function improved and the infant transitioned to full oral feeds. This case highlights the importance of maintaining a broad differential when evaluating common neonatal findings and demonstrates the potential complications of overlooked thermal injuries in this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.433 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Case ReportsSame topicNeonatal skin health careFrench-language works237,207