The Prevalence and Risk Factors of Gallstone Among Adults in South-East of Iran: A Population-Based Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and possible risk factors of gallstone disease in the general population. PATIENTS & METHODS: This cross sectional study was carried out on a total of 1522 males and females aged ≥30 years in Zahedan district, South-East of Iran. Data were collected by a validated questionnaire and gallstone diagnosis was assessed by an experienced radiologist using ultrasonography. Logistic regression model was used to identify the association between selected variables and gallstone disease. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of gallstone in participants was 2.4%. The risk of gallstone was 2.60 times higher in people age 45 and older than those aged 30 - 44 years (Odds Ratio = 2.60, 95% CI; 1.22 - 5.55). Females were 2.73 (95% CI; 1.34 - 5.56) times more likely to have disease compared to males as well. The risk in unmarried individuals was also three times higher than married ones (OR = 2.99: 95% CI 1.02 - 9.16). Additionally, daily physical activity reduced the risk of gallstone disease by 66% (95% CI; 0.18 - 0.86). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, increasing age and female gender were risk factors, whereas daily physical activity and marriage identified as protective factors in aetiology of gallstone disease.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it