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 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 | 0.016 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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".