Experiencia de cinco años en el manejo de pacientes con alto riesgo de coledocolitiasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introducción: La coledocolitiasis se desarrolla entre 8 y 18% de los pacientes con colecistitis litiásica.El diagnóstico se establece con base en los criterios de la American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).En pacientes con alto riesgo, el tratamiento sugerido es colangiopancreatografía retrógrada endoscópica (CPRE).Aunque la exploración quirúrgica de la vía biliar (EVB) ha demostrado resultados similares en cuanto a efectividad y complicaciones, aún existe controversia respecto a la mejor opción de tratamiento.Objetivo: Análisis y descripción de nuestra experiencia en el manejo de pacientes con alto riesgo de coledocolitiasis en el Centenario Hospital Miguel Hidalgo en un periodo de cinco años.Material y métodos: Estudio tipo serie de casos, retrospectivo, descriptivo, analítico y comparativo de pacientes con alto riesgo de coledocolitiasis, generando dos grupos con base en el tratamiento: colangiopancreatografía retrógrada endoscópica (CPRE) o exploración de vía biliar (EVB).Descripción de variables cualitativas y cuantitativas con porcentajes y medidas de tendencia central, χ 2 para variables categóricas, t de Student o U Mann-Whitney, según normalidad de los datos.Resultados: Muestra de 76 pacientes con alto riesgo de coledocolitiasis, 55 (72.37%) mujeres y 21 (27.63%)hombres.Media de edad 43 años (DE ± 19.07).La CPRE fue terapéutica en 41 casos (56.94%), no terapéutica en 31 (vía biliar no permeable, n = 20; ausencia
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".