Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Pediatric Patients With Acute Recurrent and Chronic Pancreatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize utilization and benefit of therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in children with acute recurrent pancreatitis (ARP) or chronic pancreatitis (CP). METHODS: From August 2012 to February 2015, 301 children with ARP or CP were enrolled in the INSPPIRE (INternational Study group of Pediatric Pancreatitis: In search for a cuRE) study. Physicians reported utilization and benefit of therapeutic ERCP at enrollment. Differences were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen children (38.9%) underwent at least 1 therapeutic ERCP. The procedure was more commonly performed in children with CP compared with those with ARP (65.8% vs 13.5%, P < 0.0001). Utility of therapeutic ERCP was reported to be similar between ARP and CP (53% vs 56%, P = 0.81) and was found to be helpful for at least 1 indication in both groups (53/99 patients [53.5%]). Predictors for undergoing therapeutic ERCP were presence of obstructive factors in ARP and CP, Hispanic ethnicity, or white race in CP. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic ERCP is frequently utilized in children with ARP or CP and may offer benefit in selected cases, specifically if ductal obstruction is present. Longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the efficacy of therapeutic ERCP and to explore subgroups that might have increased benefit from such intervention.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".