Rate of elective cholecystectomy and the incidence of severe gallstone disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of elective cholecystectomy has increased dramatically following the widespread adoption of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We sought to determine whether this increase has resulted in a reduction in the incidence of severe complications of gallstone disease. METHODS: We examined longitudinal trends in the population-based rates of severe gallstone disease from 1988 to 2000, using a quasi-experimental longitudinal design to assess the effects of the large increase in elective cholecystectomy rates after 1991 among people aged 18 years and older residing in Ontario. We also measured the rate of hospital admission because of acute diverticulitis, to control for secular trends in the use of hospital care for acute abdominal diseases. RESULTS: The adjusted annual rate of elective cholecystectomy per 100,000 population increased from 201.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 197.0-205.8) in 1988-1990 to 260.8 (95% CI 257.1- 264.5) in 1992-2000 (rate ratio [RR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.32- 1.38, p 0.001). An anomalously high number of elective cholecystectomies were performed in 1991. Overall, the annual rate of severe gallstone diseases (acute cholecystitis, acute biliary pancreatitis and acute cholangitis) declined by 10% (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88- 0.91) for 1992-2000 as compared with 1988-1991. This decline was entirely due to an 18% reduction in the rate of acute cholecystitis (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.80-0.84). INTERPRETATION: The increase in the rate of elective cholecystectomy that occurred following the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1991 was associated with an overall reduction in the incidence of severe gallstone disease that was entirely attributable to a reduction in the incidence of acute cholecystitis.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".