Abnormal Anatomical Variations of Extra-Hepatic Biliary Tract, and Their Relation to Biliary Tract Injuries and Stones Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine the most common abnormal anatomical variations of extra-hepatic biliary tract (EHBT), and their relation to biliary tract injuries and stones formation. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 120 patients, who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) and/or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography (MRCP), between July 2011 and June 2013. The patients' ERCP and MRCP images were reviewed and evaluated for the anatomy of EHBT; the medical records were reviewed for demographic data, biliary tracts injuries and stones formation. RESULTS: Out of 120 patients, 50 were males (41.7%) and 70 were females (58.3%). The mean age was 54 years old (range 20 - 88). Abnormal anatomy was reported in 30% (n = 36). Short cystic duct (CD) was found in 20% (n = 24), left CD insertion in 5% (n = 6), CD inserted into the right hepatic duct (RHD) in 1.7% (n = 2), duct of Luschka in 3.33% (n = 4) and accessory hepatic duct in also 3.33% (n = 4). Biliary tract injuries were reported in 15% (n = 18) and stones in 71.7% (n = 86). Biliary tract injuries were higher in abnormal anatomy (P = 0.04), but there was no relation between abnormal anatomy and stones formation. CONCLUSION: Abnormal anatomy of EHBT was found to be 30%. The most common abnormality is short CD followed by left CD insertion. Surgeons should be aware of these common abnormalities in our patients, hence avoiding injuries to the biliary tract during surgery. The abnormal anatomy was associated with high incidence of biliary tract injury but has no relation to biliary stone formation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".