To Resect or Not to Resect Extrahepatic Bile Duct in Gallbladder Cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The indications for and limitations of extrahepatic bile duct resection (EHBDR) in the context of gallbladder (GB) cancer are unclear. The purpose of this review was to examine the current literature to determine the impact of EHBDR on loco-regional recurrence and survival in GB cancer. The EMBASE and Medline databases were searched up to February 2016 using the terms: extrahepatic bile duct resection and gallbladder cancer. Studies published in the last 20 years were eligible for inclusion. Given the heterogeneity of the population and the study methodologies employed, qualitative data synthesis in the form of meta-analysis was deemed implausible. Twenty-four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The selected studies include 6,722 (55%) EHBDRs in a total of 12,251 GB cancer operations. The 25 studies were categorized into seven groups: 1) cancer survival all stages; 2) hepatoduodenal ligament invasion; 3) outcome in EHBDR and EHBDNR; 4) pT1b tumors; 5) pT2 tumors; 6) pT3/T4 tumors; and 7) incidental GB cancer. Radical cholecystectomy with EHBDR should be used as a standard operation for tumors involving the neck or the cystic duct of the GB (either macroscopically or microscopically). In all other cases, operative strategy should be individualized to the patient.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".