Cholecystectomy or Cholelithiasis – a Missed Marker for Hyperlipidaemia? A Combined Retrospective and Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown an association between gallstones and abnormal lipids and the latter increases the risk of coronary artery disease and stroke. Our study investigates the current incidence of lipid abnormalities in patients who have undergone cholecystectomy (retrospective study) and who have gallstones (prospective study). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the lipid profiles of 715 patients who underwent cholecystectomy in a rural district general hospital from 2003 to 2006. Details of the cholecystectomy patients were obtained from Patient Information and Management System (PIMS) and cross-referenced with biochemical and histological databases. Following this a prospective study was undertaken of 129 patients presenting with gallstones. RESULTS: Of the 715 patients, three quarters were women. Only 36.2% of women and 36.9% of men who had a cholecystectomy had a full lipid profile including high density lipoproteins (HDL) and low density lipoproteins (LDL). Of these, 76.4% of women and 70.7% of men had an abnormal lipid profile. In the prospective group, 91.1 % of women and 96.3 % of men had a full lipid profile. These were abnormal in 81.4% of women and 70.4 % of men. Hypercholesterolemia and raised LDL were the most common abnormalities in both sexes. Hypertriglyceridaemia was common in both sexes in both the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have had a cholecystectomy or gallstones should have a full fasting lipid profile, including HDL and LDL, as a large proportion will be abnormal. Current guidelines suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and should be treated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".