The Prevalence and Risk Factors of Gallstone Among Adults in South-East of Iran: A Population-Based Study
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".