Position Paper of INoEA Working Group on Long-Gap Esophageal Atresia: For Better Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INoEA is the International Network of Esophageal Atresia and consists of a broad spectrum of pediatric specialties and patient societies. The working group on long gap esophageal atresia set out to develop guidelines regarding the definition of long gap esophageal atresia, the best diagnostic and treatment strategies, and highlight the necessity of experience and communication in the management of these challenging patients. Review of the literature and expert discussion concluded that long gap esophageal atresia should be defined as any esophageal atresia that has no intra-abdominal air, realizing that this defines esophageal atresia with no distal trachea-esophageal fistula. Long gap esophageal atresia is considerably more complex than esophageal atresia with distal tracheo-esophageal fistulas, and should be referred to a center of expertise. The first choice is to preserve the native esophagus and pursue primary repair, delayed primary anastomosis or traction/growth techniques to achieve anastomosis. A cervical esophagostomy should be avoided if possible. Only if primary anastomosis is not possible, replacement techniques should be used. Jejunal interposition is proposed as the best option among the major esophageal atresia centers. In light of the infrequent occurrence of long gap esophageal atresia and the technically demanding techniques involved to achieve esophageal continuity, it is strongly advised to develop regional or national centers of expertise for the management and follow-up of these very complex patients.
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) | 0.000 | 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".