MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043477496 · doi:10.4021/gr2010.03.177w

ERCP in Patients With Sickle Cell Disease: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Dilemmas

2010· article· en· W2043477496 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hussain Issa

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCommon bile ductDuct (anatomy)FistulaInternal medicineGastroenterologyRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cholestatic jaundice (CJ) in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) poses diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas. This is an evaluation of the role of ERCP in SCD. METHODS: A total of 224 SCD patients with CJ had ERCP. The indications for ERCP were based on clinical and biochemical evidence of CJ and ultrasound findings. RESULTS: The indications were: CJ only in79, CJ and dilated ducts in 103, and CJ and biliary stones in 42. The ERCP findings were: (A) For those with CJ only: ERCP was normal in 45, showed dilated ducts with no stones in 13, dilated ducts with stones in 16, normal CBD with a stone in 1; (B) For those with CJ, dilated ducts: ERCP was normal in 17, showed dilated ducts with stones in 47, dilated ducts without stones in 28, normal CBD with a stone in 1, a choledochoduodenal fistula in 2; (C) For those with CJ and duct stones: ERCP was normal in 2, showed dilated ducts with stones in 21, dilated ducts without stones in 14, normal CBD with a stone in 1. CONCLUSIONS: ERCP was unnecessary in a significant number (27%) of patients. This is especially so for those with CJ only (57%). These should be evaluated further prior to ERCP. There was also a significant number (19%) who had ES for duct dilatation without an obstruction. The reason for this dilatation is not known and the value of ES in this group needs to be investigated further.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207