Selective or Routine Histology of Cholecystectomy Specimens for Diagnosing Incidental Carcinoma of Gallbladder and Correlation with Careful Intraoperative Macroscopic Examination? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selective or Routine histology of cholecystectomy specimens for benign gallbladder disease has always been a matter of debate because of the low prevalence and bad prognosis associated with gall bladder carcinoma. The objective of this study is to ascertain whether selective histology can be preferred over Routine histology without any harm. METHODS: This systematic review is conducted according to PRISMA's checklist; relevant articles were searched in the database until September 1 2020 in PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases, manually, with search queries and without date restrictions. Studies included in this systematic review involved patients who underwent cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease and were diagnosed with gallbladder carcinoma incidentally either after selective or routine histology of the gallbladder. RESULTS: A total of 24 routine or selective histology recommending studies were selected for the systematic review after following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. These studies comprised 77,213 numbers of patients and 486 numbers of Malignancies. These studies correlate the number of IGBC diagnosed histologically with the number of IGBC's that were suspected by the surgeons intraoperative by macroscopy. Routine recommending studies show a significant number of IGBC diagnosed histologically as missed by surgeons whereas the selective recommending studies show most of the histologically diagnosed IGBC already suspected by the surgeons intraoperative. When comparing the macroscopic details of the IGBC's between routine and selective studies, we found that there was significant overlap. Most of the findings missed by the surgeons as suspicious in routine studies were suspected by the surgeons involved in selective histology recommending studies. Thereby, favouring selective histology and emphasizing the need for careful intraoperative macroscopy for suspecting IGBC. CONCLUSION: Selective Histological examination of cholecystectomy specimens can be preferred if a careful intraoperative macroscopic examination is done and patient risk factors are taken into consideration.
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 | 0.016 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".