MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W102408304 · doi:10.1155/2002/787598

Gallbladder Polyps: Epidemiology, Natural History and Management

2002· review· en· W102408304 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Robert P. Myers, Eldon A. Shaffer, Paul L. Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGallbladderAsymptomaticMedicineGallstonesRadiologyDifferential diagnosisAbdominal ultrasonographyNatural historyUltrasonographyInternal medicineGastroenterologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polypoid lesions of the gallbladder affect approximately 5% of the adult population. Most affected individuals are asymptomatic, and their gallbladder polyps are detected during abdominal ultrasonography performed for unrelated conditions. Although the majority of gallbladder polyps are benign, most commonly cholesterol polyps, malignant transformation is a concern. The differentiation of benign from malignant lesions can be challenging. Several features, including patient age, polyp size and number, and rapid growth of polyps, are important discriminating features between benign and malignant polyps. Based on the evidence highlighted in this review, the authors recommend resection in symptomatic patients, as well as in asymptomatic individuals over 50 years of age, or those whose polyps are solitary, greater than 10 mm in diameter, or associated with gallstones or polyp growth on serial ultrasonography. Novel imaging techniques, including endoscopic ultrasonography and enhanced computed tomography, may aid in the differential diagnosis of these lesions and permit expectant management.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations203
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207