Outcomes of a Physician-Controlled Wire-Guided Cannulation of the Bile Duct Using a Novel Sphincterotome: A Single-Center, Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efficacy of a physician-controlled wire-guided cannulation of the bile duct has been reported. This study aimed to evaluate a novel sphincterotome with a short tip and a short wire, which can be bowed compactly compared to conventional sphincterotomes. METHODS: This was a single-arm, single-center, prospective study. We enrolled patients with choledocholithiasis and/or obstructive jaundice and/or cholangitis for whom endoscopic sphincterotomy was planned. The main outcome measurement was the proportion of successful selective bile duct cannulation by physician-controlled wire-guided cannulation within 10 min. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 40 patients. The proportion of successful selective bile duct cannulation within 10 min was 72.5% (n = 29). The proportion of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was 2.5% (mild, n = 1) and the proportion of hemorrhage was 2.5% (moderate, n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Although physician-controlled wire-guided cannulation using a novel sphincterotome with a short tip and a short wire was not superior to wire-guided cannulation using conventional sphincterotomes reported in a previous study, it remains a safe and efficacious alternative in terms of successful biliary cannulation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".