MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2215500775 · doi:10.1259/bjr.20150149

Biliary dilatation in the presence of a periampullary duodenal diverticulum

2015· article· en· W2215500775 on OpenAlexafffund
J J Lee, Gy. �brah�m, Silvio G. Bruni, Seng Thipphavong, Boraiah Sreeharsha

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Radiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineCommon bile ductDemographicsCholecystectomyGastroenterologyAmpullaAmpulla of VaterGallbladderInternal medicineStatistical significanceDilation (metric space)Common DuctBile duct

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Periampullary diverticulum (PAD) often presents as an incidental CT finding. Its significance and its effect on biliary dilation are unclear. The aim of our study was to determine if the presence of a PAD is associated with abnormal dilation of the common bile duct (CBD). METHODS: Patients with PAD were retrospectively identified from the radiology database from November 2011 to November 2012 and those with known pancreaticobiliary pathology were excluded, except patients with cholelithiasis and prior cholecystectomy. A total of 150 patients with PAD were selected as well as a control group of 150 patients with no PAD. Data with respect to demographics, PAD size and location, ductal diameter, previous cholecystectomy and liver function tests were collected. To compare the groups, the Student's t-test and χ(2) analysis were used where appropriate. RESULTS: The male : female ratio was 1 : 1.2 with a median average of 71 years in the PAD group. There was no statistical difference in the CBD measurement (at the pre-ampulla and pancreatic head, and distal to confluence) between the PAD and control groups (4.8, 6.9 and 6.8 mm for the PAD group; 4.7, 6.8 and 6.4 mm for the control group; p = 0.5, 0.7 and 0.3). Also, no difference was observed in the right and left intrahepatic biliary ducts (2.7, 2.7 mm for the PAD group; 2.5, 2.6 mm for the control group; p = 0.2, 0.6). There was a significantly higher incidence of cholecystectomy history (23% vs 8.7%, p < 0.01) and cholelithiasis (22% vs 11%, p < 0.01) in the PAD group, and no difference in the liver function tests. Subgroup analysis of small vs large PAD (<20 mm, ≥20 mm) did not show a difference in the CBD and intrahepatic biliary duct measurements. When comparing cholecystectomy vs non-cholecystectomy groups, CBD measurements were significantly higher in the cholecystectomy group. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that PAD on its own does not lead to abnormal CBD dilatation. However, increased incidence of cholelithiasis and cholecystectomy was noted in the presence of PAD. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: PAD on its own does not cause CBD dilatation.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of RadiologySame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207