MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593975467 · doi:10.1155/2007/410308

Endoscopic Management of a Relapsing Hepatic Hydatid Cyst with Intrabiliary Rupture: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

2007· review· en· W1593975467 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andreas Manouras, Michael Genetzakis, Pantelis Antonakis, Emmanuel Lagoudianakis, Michael Pattas, Artemisia Papadima, Panagiotis Giannopoulos, Evangelos Menenakos

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParasitic infections in humans and animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCholangiographyHydatid cystComplicationSurgeryJaundiceEndoscopyEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyObstructive jaundiceCystEndoscopic treatmentRadiologyGeneral surgeryPancreatitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydatid disease, although endemic mostly in sheep-farming countries, remains a public health issue worldwide, involving mainly the liver. Intrabiliary rupture is the most frequent complication of the hepatic hydatid cyst. Endoscopy is advocated, preoperatively, to alleviate obstructive jaundice caused by intracystic materials after a frank rupture and is also a useful and well-established adjunct in locating postoperative biliary fistulas. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with sphincterotomy has been successful as the sole and definitive means of treatment of intrabiliary ruptured hydatid cysts. A case of an elderly woman with frank rupture is presented, where the rupture was definitively managed endoscopically in conjunction with sphincterotomy to remove the intrabiliary obstructive daughter cysts and to achieve decontamination of the biliary tree. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography provided an excellent diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the present case and, thus, it should be considered as definitive treatment in similar cases especially if surgical risk is anticipated to be high.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations44
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicParasitic infections in humans and animalsFrench-language works237,207