Detection and Localization of Bile Duct Leaks After Cholecystectomy Using Gd-EOB-DTPA—Enhanced MR Cholangiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiography can detect and localize bile duct leaks in postcholecystectomy patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four blinded independent radiologists performed a retrospective review of 16 consecutive patients who underwent MR cholangiography with intravenous Gd-EOB-DTPA for the evaluation of possible biliary leak. Image quality, ductal opacification, and presence and location of any bile leak were evaluated. An independent observer determined the criterion standard using a consensus of all chart, clinical, and imaging findings. RESULTS: All 6 bile leaks confirmed at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were diagnosed by all reviewers (sensitivity, 100%). Of the 10 patients with no leak, only one reader incorrectly diagnosed a bile leak in a single case (specificity, 98%). The accuracy for detection of the site of leak with Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR cholangiography was 80%. CONCLUSION: Gadolinium-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR can detect bile leaks with a high sensitivity and specificity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".