Is an optical illusion the cause of classical bile duct injuries?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to determine if lateral-inferior traction on the Hartmann pouch could produce bile duct kinking and subsequent misinterpretation of the space on the left side of the bile duct as the hepatobiliary triangle. Once traction was applied, we measured the angle between the cystic duct and inferior gallbladder wall hepatobiliary triangle) in 76 cases, and the angle between the common bile duct and common hepatic duct (porta hepatis "triangle") in 41 cases. The mean angles were significantly different (hepatobiliary triangle mean 68.2°, standard deviation [SD] 16.0°, range 23-109°; porta hepatis "triangle" mean 112.0°, SD 18.4°, range 72-170°; p < 0.01). The ranges, however, overlapped in 26 cases. In many cases, lateral-inferior traction on the Hartmann pouch produced substantial kinking of the bile duct that could easily elicit the illusion that it is the hepatobiliary triangle rather than the centre of the porta hepatis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".