Diagnosis and treatment of juxta-ampullary duodenal diverticulum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the diagnosis and treatment of juxta-ampullary duodenal diverticulum (JAD) in our hospital. METHODS: Of 5000 consecutive endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed in our department, 225 patients were diagnosed with JAD and treated. All patients were classified based on the location of Ampullae of Vater in relation to the duodenal diverticulum. Of the 225 JAD patients, 96 patients (43%) required surgery. RESULTS: The 225 patients with JAD were divided into Type A (146 cases, 65%) or Type B (79 cases, 35%). Type A patients presented with papillae near the diverticulum or in its margin. In this type, 36 patients (25%) presented with diverticulitis, bleeding, perforation or cholelithiasis, and were treated surgically. Type B patients presented with papillae inside the diverticulum. Among them, 60 patients (76%) had complications requiring surgery. CONCLUSIONS: JAD can be divided into two types based on location of the papillae. ERCP was the primary method of diagnosing JAD and patients with severe complications required surgical intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".