High resolution cholangioscopic electrohydraulic lithotripsy for fragmentation and extraction of impacted cystic duct stones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 29-year-old woman presented with right-sided abdominal pain and jaundice. The patient was postpartum but otherwise healthy. Her total bilirubin level was 74 µmol/L. Abdominal ultrasound revealed a 9-mm dilated proximal common bile duct (CBD), a suspected CBD stone and a distended gallbladder with gallstones. The patient underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, no obvious filling defects were seen in the CBD. A convex filling defect was seen protruding from the cystic duct confluence, with proximal dilatation and an absence of gallbladder filling ([Fig. 1]). Sphincterotomy was performed, and but the stones could not be extracted by means of balloon sweeps. A plastic biliary stent was placed and the patient underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Intraoperative choledochoscopy revealed an impacted stone at the cystic duct confluence. Despite attempts to extract the stone with three wire baskets and two Fogarty catheters, the stone could not be removed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".