The clinical importance of different localizations of the papilla associated with juxtapapillary duodenal diverticula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have evaluated the presence of juxtapapillary duodenal diverticula (JPDD) and the association with pancreatobiliary disease, but not the association of the papilla with an existing JPDD. We investigated the association of different localizations of the papilla with JPDD. METHODS: We studied patients in whom JPDD was detected during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Patients were classified into 3 groups: 1) papilla located inside the diverticulum, 2) papilla located at the edge of the diverticulum and 3) papilla located closer than 3 cm to the diverticulum. The patients were examined with respect to localization of papilla-diverticula and to the association of the localization with pancreaticobiliary disease. RESULTS: We enrolled 274 patients in our study. Biliary stone disease more frequently existed in group 3. The number of patients presenting with obstructive jaundice was higher in groups 2 (83.6%) and 3 (83.3%) than group 1 (66%). Cholangitis was more common in group 1 (21.3%) than in groups 2 (6.7%) and 3 (2.3%). The presence of biliary stone disease among patients presenting with pancreatitis was significantly different between groups 1 and 3 (p = 0.013) and between groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.017). The common bile duct more frequently contained stones or sludge in group 3 than in groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: When the papilla is located close to the JPDD, the incidence of biliary stone disease decreases, and pancreatobiliary diseases are caused mostly in the absence of biliary stone 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".