Prospective multicentre cohort study of patient-reported outcomes after cholecystectomy for uncomplicated symptomatic cholecystolithiasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Up to 33 per cent of patients with uncomplicated symptomatic cholecystolithiasis report persistent pain after cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to determine characteristics associated with patient-reported absence of abdominal pain after cholecystectomy, improved abdominal symptoms, and patient-reported positive cholecystectomy results in a prospective cohort multicentre study. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or more with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis who had a cholecystectomy between June 2012 and June 2014 in one of three hospitals were included. Before surgery all patients were sent the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) questionnaire and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). At 12 weeks after surgery, patients were invited to complete the GIQLI and Patients' Experience of Surgery Questionnaire (PESQ). Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine associations. RESULTS: Questionnaires were sent to 552 patients and returned by 342 before and after surgery. Postoperative absence of abdominal pain was reported by 60·5 per cent of patients. A high preoperative GIQLI score, episodic pain, and duration of pain of 1 year or less were associated with postoperative absence of pain. These factors showed no association with improved abdominal symptoms (reported by 91·5 per cent of patients) or a positive surgery result (reported by 92·4 per cent). CONCLUSION: Preoperative characteristics determine the odds for relief of abdominal pain after cholecystectomy. However, these factors were not associated with patient-reported improvement of abdominal symptoms or patient-reported positive cholecystectomy results, highlighting the variation of internal standards and expectations of patients before cholecystectomy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".