Canadian Association of General Surgeons Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery. 2. E.A.E.S multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing to-stage vs single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and ductal calculi.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Question: To compare the effectiveness of endoscopic stone extraction (ESE) followed by laparoscopic cholecspecomy (LC) to laparoscopic cholecystecomy and extraction of common bile-duct (CBD) stones. Design: A randomized controlled trial. Setting: European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) at 9 centres. Patients: Three hundred fit patients with proven or suspected ductal calculi based on the following criteria: jaundice, a recent episode of acute pancreatitis, elevated liver function test and ultrasonographic results. Intervention: Group A patients (n = 150) received preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with ESE followed by LC during the same admission. Group B patients (n = 150) received single-stage laparoscopic management with laparoscopic cholecystecomy, intraoperative cholangiography and extraction of stones through the CBD or cystic duct. Main outcome measures: Total hospital stay, efficacy (as measured by the ability to clear the CBD of stones) and complications. Results: See Table 1. Conclusions: The results demonstrate equivalent success rates and patient morbidity for the 2 management options but a significantly shorter hospital stay with the single-stage laparoscopic treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".