MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171146419 · doi:10.1503/cjs.016613

End-to-end ductal anastomosis in biliary reconstruction: indications and limitations

2014· review· en· W2171146419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Beata Jabłońska

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnastomosisLiver transplantationBile ductTransplantationSurgeryRoux-en-Y anastomosisCholangiographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

End-to-end ductal anastomosis is a physiologic biliary reconstruction that is commonly used in liver transplantation and less frequently in the surgical treatment of iatrogenic bile duct injuries. Currently, end-to-end ductal anastomosis is the biliary reconstruction of choice for liver transplantation in most adult patients. In recent years, it has also been performed for liver transplantation in children and in select patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. The procedure is also performed in some patients with iatrogenic bile duct injuries, as it establishes physiologic bile flow. Proper digestion and absorption as well as postoperative endoscopic access are possible in patients who undergo end-to-end ductal anastomosis. It allows endoscopic diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in patients following surgery. This anastomosis is technically simple and associated with fewer early postoperative complications than the Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy; however, end-to-end ductal anastomosis is not possible to perform in all patients. This review discusses the indications for and limitations of this biliary reconstruction, the technique used in liver transplantation and surgical repair of injured bile ducts, suture types and use of a T-tube.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207