MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325056018 · doi:10.1155/2004/741912

Patterns of Use of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in a Canadian Province

2004· article· en· W2325056018 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Robert J. Hilsden, Joseph Romagnuolo, Gary R. May

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
KeywordsEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyMedicineGeneral surgeryGeographySurgeryPancreatitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Data on current endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) practice patterns drawn from large population-based samples are limited. METHODS: Patterns of ERCP use were determined using billing records for ERCP, sphincterotomy, stone extraction or stent placement performed between April 1, 1994 and March 31, 2002 in Alberta from a population-based administrative database. Age-sex adjusted rates (per 1000 population) were calculated using the 1991 Canadian population as the standard. RESULTS: The eight-year average ERCP rate was 0.98 without evidence of an increasing or decreasing trend over time. The ERCP rate was 0.85 in men and 1.12 in women. Significant regional variation in ERCP rates was seen, ranging from a low of 0.64 to a high of 1.27. The proportion of procedures that were therapeutic increased from 33% in 1994 to 70% in 2001. The likelihood of a procedure being considered therapeutic varied with the age and sex of the patient as well as the health region in which the procedure was performed. CONCLUSIONS: The ERCP rate remained relatively stable over an eight-year time period, but the proportion of procedures that were therapeutic increased dramatically. Important regional variation in ERCP rates and therapeutic procedures exists.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207