Endoscopic intervention for the prevention of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reason for withdrawal from publication The protocol was amended in Issue 1, 2012 of the Cochrane Library as it is being split into a suite of the following six reviews: Electrosurgical current for endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy for the Prevention of Post Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Pancreatitis Guidewire Assisted Cannulation of the Common bile duct for the Prevention of Post Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Pancreatitis Prophylactic Insertion of Pancreatic Stents for the Prevention of Post Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Pancreatitis Radiographic Contrast Media for the Prevention of Post Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Pancreatitis Early Precut Sphincterotomy for the Prevention of Post Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Pancreatitis Pancreatic Duct Guidewire Placement for Biliary Cannulation for the Prevention of Post Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Pancreatitis The suite of reviews will be brought together in an overview review (Endoscopic interventions for the prevention of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis) at a later date. To view the published versions of this article, please click the 'Other versions' tab.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".