MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134523928 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab002.202

A204 PATIENT FACTORS AND STONE FEATURES AS PROGNOSTIC PREDICTORS IN BILIARY STONE LITHOTRIPSY BY SINGLE-OPERATOR CHOLANGIOPANCREATOSCOPY

2021· article· en· W3134523928 on OpenAlexaff
Igor Sljivic, Daljeet Chahal, Roberto Trasolini, Fergal Donnellan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLithotripsyAdverse effectBile ductDemographicsEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyRetrospective cohort studyCommon bile ductBiliary diseaseSurgeryInternal medicineGeneral surgeryPancreatitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Single-operator cholangiopancreatoscopy (SOC) is a therapeutic modality for pancreaticobiliary stone disease that is refractory to traditional ERCP. SOC is still considered a relatively novel technology with limited access in many centers and significant associated costs. Thus, it is imperative to understand the influence patient-based factors and ancillary actions have on the outcome of SOC. Aims We hope to determine if the differences in clinical outcomes amongst cohorts suffice to indicate a re-evaluation of SOC in unfavourable patient populations. We present a series of patients who underwent SOC for biliary stone lithotripsy at a tertiary center with exploratory analysis of factors related to efficacy and adverse events. Methods This is a retrospective, descriptive case series. Cases were identified via query of the electronic medical record between March 2016 and May 2019. We evaluated patient demographics, past medical history, clinical presentation, disease characteristics, complication rates, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics are reported. Results 25 unique patients underwent a total of 44 SOC procedures. Mean age was 68 (range 22–88). 13 patients were male. 29 procedures involved a stone in the Common Bile Duct (CBD), 5 in the Common Hepatic & Intrahepatic Ducts (CIHD), 4 in the Pancreatic Duct (PD) and 6 in the Cystic Duct (CD). Symptomatic improvement was achieved in 100% of patients. After a single session, 22.7% of procedures resulted in complete clearance and 59.1% of cases led to partial fragmentation. CBD stones however had an 86.2% clearance rate, compared to an 88–91% success rate in literature. The total complication rate was 16% across age and sex groups. The most common complication was bacteremia in 4 (9.1%) cases. Undifferentiated complication rates were highest with CD stones, while bacteremia was most likely with PD stones. A strong trend was noticed between past SOC procedures and increasing ongoing stone burden, with repeat SOC required less often in patient’s with fewer past SOC procedures. We further observed poorer fragmentation rates for PD stones and a rising trend for repeat SOCs for proximal CBD stones. Conclusions SOC is useful against difficult biliary stones and can provide therapeutic relief without theoretical risks associated with surgery and ERCP. While our study was underpowered to provide generalizable statistics, it is one of the few studies that showed the influence certain comorbidities, stone characteristics and age have on the efficacy and safety of SOC. Our data illustrates the relative effect location and stone-size has on fragmentation and complications rates. Poorer outcomes are more frequent in those with systemic comorbidities and previous surgeries, and rates of complications and failed fragmentation are further exacerbated by age. Funding Agencies None

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207