Correction for vol. 47, p. 0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cholecystectomy and bowel functionEDITOR,-I read with great interest the article by Hearing et al (Gut 1999;45:889-894) on the eVect of cholecystectomy on bowel function.In this elegant publication, however, the authors mistakenly assume that published estimates of the prevalence of postcholecystectomy diarrhoea derive from retrospective or uncontrolled data only.In this context I would like to draw attention to earlier publications derived from the Rotterdam Gallstone Study. 1 2 In the first paper the results are discussed of a prospective analysis of biliary and gastrointestinal symptoms (including diarrhoea) prior to and up to two years after gall stone therapy. 1 Therapy consisted of either conventional cholecystectomy or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), allocated randomly.The second paper focused on surgery and reported on symptoms before and after conventional and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. 2 This study was based on the same concept, and treatment depended on the availability of a laparoscopic set.Generally, we found that the reported incidence of diarrhoea before and after surgery did not change.In fact, there was no diVerence in the reported incidence of diarrhoea at any time between cholecystectomy and gall bladder preserving therapy (that is, ESWL).We also found that there were no diVerences in the reported incidence or severity of diarrhoea between laparoscopic and conventional cholecystectomy at any time.Although the study design of our two studies diVered largely from that of Hearing's, the results and conclusions are in agreement, in that clinical diarrhoea seldom develops after cholecystectomy.O'Donnell is correct that objective assessment rarely demonstrates new onset diarrhoea after cholecystectomy.3 I agree with Hearing et al that postcholecystectomy diarrhoea is in fact an unproved entity.Given our and Hearing's results, I doubt if more prospective studies are needed to solve this problem.
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 | 0.003 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.382 | 0.232 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".