BILE LEAK FROM DUCT OF LUSCHKA AFTER LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We report a case of bile leak from an accessory duct of Luschka during cholecystectomy during liver transplantation. METHODS: Radiological findings suggested that the collection was septated. An intra-operative cholangiogram was obtained by cannulation of the accessory hepatic duct. RESULTS: An infected biloma with Clostridium perfringens was drained surgically. The bile leak that emanated from the gall bladder fossa was found to communicate with an accessory right hepatic duct draining a segmental duct in the right liver lobe. The bile leak resolved completely after direct suture of the accessory duct. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive use of electrocautery to the liver bed during donor cholecystectomy may injure subcapsular ducts in the gallbladder fossa. In liver transplantation, dissection should be kept close to the serosal lining of the gall bladder, preserving the areolar tissue in the gall bladder bed, to avoid injury to the duct of Luschka.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".