Dilatation of the Bile Duct in Patients after Cholecystectomy: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Retrospective assessment of impact of cholecystectomy, age, and sex on bile duct (BD) diameter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed abdominal contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and laboratory reports of 290 consecutive patients (119 men; mean age, 55.9 years) who presented without cholestasis to the emergency department of our institution between June 2009 and August 2010. BD diameters were measured in 3 locations, by 2 independent observers, twice, at 1-month intervals. Reproducibility and agreement were evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analyses. The effects of cholecystectomy, age, and sex on BD diameter were analysed with linear mixed models. RESULTS: BD diameter inter-reader reproducibility and agreement were excellent at the level of the right hepatic artery (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.94). Sixty-one patients (21.0%) had a history of cholecystectomy. Among them, the 95th percentile of BD diameters at hepatic artery level was 7.9 mm (<50 years) and 12.3 mm (≥50 years). Among those without cholecystectomy, BD diameter was 6.2 mm (<50 years) and 7.7 mm (≥50 years). Cholecystectomy was associated with significantly larger BD diameters in both age groups (P < .001). Older age was associated with larger BD diameters (P = .004). Sex had no impact on BD diameter (P = .842). CONCLUSION: Patients after cholecystectomy may present with an enlarged BD unrelated to cholestasis. The BD diameter increases with age. Clinicians should rely on cholecystectomy status, age, and laboratory results to determine needs of further investigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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, 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".