Analysis of risk factors for the development of gallstones after gastrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of gallstones is higher in people who have undergone gastrectomy than in the general population, but the cause of this is unknown. METHODS: Between January 1992 and January 2003, 749 patients underwent ultrasonography of the gallbladder after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. A total of 2327 examinations were carried out. The incidence of gallstones was compared in subgroups of patients classified according to the type of reconstruction, extent of gastrectomy, whether the duodenum was excluded and type of lymph node dissection. RESULTS: The incidence of gallstones was significantly higher after total compared with partial gastrectomy (27.9 versus 7.8 per cent at 5 years; P < 0.001). Reconstruction with duodenal exclusion was associated with a significantly higher incidence than non-exclusion (25.1 versus 8.2 per cent at 5 years; P < 0.001). Patients who had lymph node dissection in the hepatoduodenal ligament had a significantly higher incidence of gallstones than those who did not (28.2 versus 7.5 per cent at 5 years; P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis that included type of reconstruction and lymph node dissection, lymph node dissection in the hepatoduodenal ligament was identified as the most significant risk factor for gallstone development (odds ratio 3.66 (95 per cent confidence interval 2.16 to 6.22); P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Lymph node dissection in the hepatoduodenal ligament, total gastrectomy and exclusion of the duodenum are risk factors for gallstones after gastrectomy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".