Minilaparoscopic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review broadly examines the impact of minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The primary outcome was failure of surgical technique. The secondary outcomes were to examine adverse events, cosmesis, length of time to return to activity, quality of life, and length of operation. METHODS: Five databases, 2 conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles, and a Web-based trial registry were searched to identify eligible studies. Experts in the field of laparoscopic surgery were also contacted to provide information for the review.This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the QUORUM guidelines. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met eligibility criteria. Methodologic quality was unclear in most trials. Patients having a minilaparoscopic technique had higher conversion rates than patients having a conventional laparoscopic technique [OR 2.25 (1.18-4.30)]. Although minilaparoscopic surgeries were converted, more often there was not a trend toward increased conversion to an open technique. There was a trend toward fewer adverse events using a minilaparoscopic technique [0.57 (0.31-1.04)], however it was not significant. Cosmesis was improved in minilaparoscopic patients at 1 month [mean difference −0.74(−1.09 to −0.38)]. Patients receiving minilaparoscopic procedures returned to activity quicker [mean difference −0.74 (−1.23–0.25)]. CONCLUSIONS: Further randomized trials are needed to determine whether minilaparoscopic techniques truly offer any advantages. Important patient outcomes such as failure of technique, adverse events, cosmesis, and quality of life should be emphasized to determine whether there is any benefit over conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it