The presence and outcome of biliary sphincter disorders in liver-transplant recipients according to the Rome IV classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Biliary sphincter disorders after liver transplantation (LT) are poorly described. We aim to describe the presence and outcome of patients with papillary stenosis (PS) and functional biliary sphincter disorders (FBSDs) after LT according to the updated Rome IV criteria. Methods We reviewed all endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCPs) performed in LT recipients between January 2003 and December 2019. Information on clinical and endoscopic findings was obtained from electronic health records and endoscopy databases. Laboratory and clinical findings were collected at the time of ERCP and 1 month after ERCP. Results Among the 1,307 LT recipients, 336 underwent 849 ERCPs. Thirteen (1.0%) patients met the updated Rome IV criteria for PS [former sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) type I] and 14 patients (1.0%) met the Rome IV criteria for FBSD (former SOD type II). Biliary sphincterotomy was performed in 13 PS and 10 FBSD cases. One month after sphincterotomy, bilirubin, gamma-glutamyl transferase and alkaline phosphatase levels decreased in 85%, 61%, and 92% of those in the PS group (P = 0.019, 0.087, and 0.003, respectively) and in 50%, 70%, and 80% of those in the FBSD group (P = 0.721, 0.013, and 0.093, respectively). All the 14 patients initially suspected of having a FBSD turned out to have a different diagnosis during the follow-up. Conclusions PS after LT is uncommon and occurs in only 1% of LT recipients. Our data do not support the presence of an FBSD after LT. Sphincterotomy is a safe and effective procedure in LT recipients with PS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".