Clinical Presentation, Diagnosis, and Management of Air Embolism During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a minimally invasive procedure that is widely used by endoscopists and has a robust therapeutic profile. It uses endoscopy and imaging for a variety of diagnostic as well as therapeutic purposes. It is used for the management of a lot of pancreaticobiliary diseases such as obstructive jaundice, obstruction related to bile ducts, pancreatic biliary tumors, and traumatic or iatrogenic damage to the bile ducts. Other therapeutic interventions that can be done via ERCP include sphincterotomy, dilation of strictures, removal of biliary stones and placement of stents. Air embolism presents with cardiovascular, pulmonary, and neurologic signs and symptoms. Treatment of air embolism should be started early in suspected cases, and it should be in the differential diagnoses of various complications secondary to high risk of ERCP, especially if a cardiopulmonary compromise is present. Air embolism is rare but a serious complication associated with ERCP. The physicians must keep this in mind while performing ERCP in patients with predisposing risk factors. This review highlights the mechanism, causes, risk factors, pathophysiology, clinical signs, diagnostic modalities, treatment, and preventive measures to deal with this catastrophic complication.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".