Risk Factors for Bile Duct Injury During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Case-Control Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common bile duct injury is a serious but uncommon complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A case-control epidemiologic study of patients who had undergone cholecystectomy in Ontario, Canada, between 1991 and 1997 was performed. Four patients who had undergone a laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the same hospital 2 months prior to a case were selected as controls. The risk of bile duct injury associated with various exposures was estimated by unconditional logistic regression. There were 28 cases and 88 controls. Emergency operation (adjusted odds ratio = 5.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-17.8) and failure to identify the cystic duct (adjusted odds ratio = 13.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.5-76.3) were statistically significant risk factors for operative bile duct injury. No other characteristics were independent risk factors for bile duct injury. Failure to identify the cystic duct and the emergency surgery are independent risk factors for bile duct injury.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it