Optimal Timing of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
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
Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) comprises the current treatment modality in patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones. The optimum interval between ERCP and LC is a topic of debate. M ethods: A total of 50 patients underwent LC following ERCP from December 2011 to October 2013. Of these, 28 patients underwent surgery within 3 days of ERCP (early) and 22 patients beyond 3 days following ERCP (delayed). A prospective observational study of various technical difficulties encountered (operative duration, adhesions, frozen C alot’s, bile duct injuries, conversion rate and need for drain) was done and comparison was done. Results: The incidence of adhesions, frozen Calot’s, cystic duct injury, need for drain placement and the mean operative duration and postoperative stay were significantly higher in the delayed group. The conversion rate though higher is not statistically significant. Conclusion: The longer the interval between ERCP and LC, the higher are the chances of encountering complications and the risk of conversion to open technique as well as the need for increased hospital stay following surgery. Early LC following ERCP is preferred. J Curr Surg. 2014;4(2):35-39 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs230w
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it