Biliary Drainage Method and Temporal Trends in Patients Admitted with Cholangitis: A National Audit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients presenting with ascending cholangitis, better outcomes are reported in those undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) compared with surgical drainage. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with the type of intervention, and to examine temporal trends in the treatment of ascending cholangitis. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Patients ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of cholangitis between 1998 and 2009 were selected. Temporal trends were assessed using Poisson regression models. Multivariable models were fitted to predict the likelihood of a patient undergoing ERCP, percutaneous or surgical drainage, or no drainage. RESULTS: A weighted estimate of 248,942 patients admitted for cholangitis was identified. Overall, 131,052 patients were treated with ERCP (52.6%), 10,486 with percutaneous drainage (4.2%) and 12,460 with surgical drainage (5.0%); 43.0% did not receive drainage during the admission. Temporal trends between 1998 and 2009 showed a decline in surgical and percutaneous drainage, and a rise in ERCP. In multivariable analyses adjusted for clustering, ERCP and percutaneous drainage were more often performed in institutions with a high volume of admissions for cholangitis, those with a greater bed number and hospitals located in urban areas. CONCLUSION: Over the past decade, the use of surgical and percutaneous drainage has decreased while that of ERCP has risen. Patients treated at institutions with a low volume of admissions for cholangitis, small bed number and in rural areas were less likely to undergo ERCP or percutaneous drainage.
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 | 0.001 | 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".