Biliary Access During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several techniques have been developed to facilitate cannulation of the papilla during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The position of the endoscope should generally provide a 'straight' route to the papilla, and the efforts should be directed at shortening the intraduodenal portion of the bile duct. If a guidewire is used, one should be chosen that possesses suitable tip and shaft characteristics, including flexibility, strength, low friction and trackability, but no one device is likely to be suitable for all purposes. The development of guidewires composed of nitinol has revolutionized endoscopic practice. Access papillotomy ('pre-cut') can be employed as an alternative to (or in addition to) insertion of a guidewire when cannulation of the major papilla has been unsuccessful. The same techniques may be used to allow deep cannulation of the bile or pancreatic duct after ductography, when fluoroscopy can also be used. The 'needle-knife', which must be used carefully because it cuts with even slight tissue contact, is moved in the expected direction of the intramural bile (or pancreatic) duct to gain direct access into the duct. Access papillotomy is a valuable procedure in difficult cases, but is associated with greater risks than standard ERCP techniques (except perhaps for a reduced likelihood of pancreatitis), and is best employed by personnel who have extensive experience with therapeutic endoscopy. Technical details for a variety of clinical situations are described. Success requires application of 'the four Ps': position, practice, patience and perseverance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".