MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793408214 · doi:10.14740/gr974w

Outcomes of a Physician-Controlled Wire-Guided Cannulation of the Bile Duct Using a Novel Sphincterotome: A Single-Center, Prospective Study

2018· article· en· W2793408214 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Koichiro Mandai, Koji Uno, Yuki Ueda, Yusuke Okada, Kenjiro Yasuda

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSingle CenterBile ductCenter (category theory)General surgerySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207