MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973213320 · doi:10.15403/jgld-215

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Gallbladder Interventions: a Review of the Current Literature

2019· review· en· W2973213320 on OpenAlexaff
Stefano Francesco Crinò, Mihai Rimbaș, Armando Gabbrielli, Alberto Larghi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic ultrasoundGallbladderEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyRadiologyAcute cholecystitisDecompressionBiliary drainageCystic ductGeneral surgerySurgeryPancreatitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a rapidly expanding field with a wide variety of indications, including different drainage procedures and delivery of locoregional treatment mainly for pancreatic solid tumors. Transgastric or transduodenal gallbladder drainage in high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis or biliary decompression in patients with unresectable distal biliary malignant obstruction who failed endoscopic retrograde colangiography is one of the newest areas of EUS-guided intervention. The large-caliber lumen apposing metal stents placed during these procedures allow direct endoscopic gallbladder access and the possibility of performing gallstone treatment or resection of mucosal polyps. The current review presents the indications of endoscopic gallbladder interventions and discusses the results of available studies, foreseeing future potential applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gastrointestinal and Liver DiseasesSame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207