The role of prophylactic cholecystectomy versus deferral in the care of patients after endoscopic sphincterotomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic cholecystectomy (PC) is advised after ES and clearance of ductal calculi on the basis of a randomized controlled trial that showed a requirement for cholecystectomy in 36% of patients who defer surgery. Other studies suggest the cholecystectomy rate to be as low as 8%. METHOD: To determine the proportion of patients who deferred cholecystectomy and the outcome, we reviewed 870 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and sphincterotomy; the gallbladder of 420 of these remained in situ. Patients were assigned to PC or deferred cholecystectomy (DC) groups. RESULTS: Cholecystectomy was deferred in 180 of 310 eligible patients. DC patients were significantly older (66.4 v. 49.8 yr) and sicker (according to the American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] physiological status score) and had a significantly higher mortality rate than did PC patients. Deaths were principally cardiovascular and not biliary related. After a follow-up of 24.2 (<1-82.3) months, eventual cholecystectomy was required in 46 (24.7%) DC patients at a mean of 6 months after ES. The subgroup undergoing eventual cholecystectomy was younger (57.6 v. 69.4 yr; p<0.001) fitter (ASA score of 1.98 v. 2.26; p=0.015) and more likely to have residual cholecystolithiasis than were those who continued deferral. Recurrent pancreatitis was more common in DC (30%) than in PC (4.8%) patients if pancreatitis was the indication for sphincterotomy. DISCUSSION: PC is advised for patients with residual cholecystolithiasis after ES. In patients with relative contraindications, the choice is balanced in favour of cholecystectomy if there is a history of pancreatitis and in favour of deferral if more than 6 months have elapsed since ES.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".