Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for ultrasound normal gallbladders: Should we forego hepatobiliary iminodiacetic acid scans?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hepatobiliary iminodiacetic acid (HIDA)-radionuclear scans are used to diagnose biliary dyskinesia, the treatment for which is a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, the predictive value of the HIDA scan for LC candidacy is debated. CASE: A physical, ultrasound, and blood test for a 53-year-old woman with biliary dyskinesia-like symptoms were normal, contradicting a textbook history. A HIDA-scan was ordered but the results suggested she was not eligible for a LC. The patient insisted on receiving the procedure and gave informed consent to undergo an elective LC. RESULTS: Six-weeks post-surgery, the patient's symptoms had ceased besides one short episode of abdominal pain. CONCLUSION: A LC relieved the patient's symptoms, suggesting that negative HIDA-scans can mislead correct decisions to perform a LC. Surgeons who receive inconclusive HIDA scan results should consult their patients, and when necessary and agreed-upon, take an informed risk together in an attempt to improve the patient's quality of life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".