MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161907620 · doi:10.7759/cureus.14937

A Review of the Management of Bile Leaks

2021· review· en· W3161907620 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsHeritage College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBile ductCholecystectomyLaparoscopic cholecystectomyGeneral surgeryIntensive care medicineReferralMultidisciplinary approachSurgeryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bile leaks can be a complication of abdominal surgeries, specifically trauma to the biliary system during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and can occur from a variety of sources, commonly a bile duct injury (BDI). Their management involves a multidisciplinary approach and depends on a multitude of factors. This consequence has also led to increased health care costs and morbidity and mortality for patients. Currently, there are no professional society-initiated guidelines that provide surgeons with a clear algorithm for managing bile leaks, as there are for other operative approaches and management in various surgical diseases. Thus, a literature search was performed that surveyed current research on the effective prevention and management of the different types of bile leaks. This review aims to provide all clinicians with an overview of factors to consider in the management of bile leaks and supports referral to a tertiary center with a hepatobiliary specialist.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.308 · 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