Images How to diagnose a Canadian: a case of foreign body
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ingestion An 18-year-old female presented to the emergency department (ED) complaining of a foreign body (FB) sensation in her throat after drinking heavily the previous night. While taking her last ‘‘shot’ ’ of liquor, she felt a cool object in her mouth. Assuming that it was an ice cube, she ‘‘took it down’ ’ and immediately felt the object get stuck in her throat. She had no respiratory complaints and was able to tolerate solid foods with mild discomfort but no significant issues. The patient’s physical examination was unremarkable for signs of tracheoesophageal obstruction. After reviewing the patient’s soft tissue radiograph of the neck, the staff physician and medical student agreed that the final diagnosis was ‘‘Canadian.’’ Finding a radiopaque maple leaf–shaped FB in the patient’s esophagus (Figure 1), the gastroenterology service was called and performed upper endoscopy with removal of the metallic object. A minor ulcer was found; however, no other sequelae resulted from the ingestion. The patient was sent home on a clear fluid diet to advance as tolerated. Esophageal FBs require urgent management because of potentially life-threatening complications. Plain radiography is indicated in all patients with a history suggestive of FB ingestion. One study found that plain soft tissue radiographs of the neck were 86 % sensitive for FB ingestion.1–3 Symptomatic patients with a clear history of FB ingestion, a normal physical examination, and normal initial radiographs should be considered for endoscopy to rule out the presence of an FB.4,5
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".