Is HIDA Scan Necessary for Sonographically Suspicious Cholecystitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Historically, abdominal ultrasound is the study of choice for diagnosing cholelithiasis, whereas HIDA scan is the study of choice for diagnosing acute cholecystitis. With improvements in ultrasound technology over the past two decades, we sought to reevaluate the clinical utility of HIDA scan over ultrasound alone in diagnosing cholecystitis. Methods : A retrospective review of 154 patients admitted to our emergency room with suspicion for cholecystitis who underwent abdominal sonography, HIDA scan, and proceeded to cholecystectomy on the same admission was conducted. Results of ultrasound and HIDA scan were compared to the final surgical pathology. Results : The two groups did not differ with respect to age or gender. HIDA scan had a greater sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in diagnosing cholecystitis, but the positive predictive value of ultrasound and HIDA scan were similar. Conclusions : While HIDA scan may be the test of choice for diagnosing cholecystitis, it may be unnecessary in patients with sonographically suspicious cholecystitis, as these sonographic features, when present, are highly predictive of cholecystitis. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jcs201w
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".