Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gallbladder duplication is a rare congenital malformation that occurs in about one in 4000 births. Congenital anomalies of the gallbladder and anatomical variations of their positions are associated with an increased risk of complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We report the case of a double gallbladder in a fifty-six year old man. He presented with recurrent episodes of biliary colic. Pre-operative imaging confirmed the diagnosis. He subsequently underwent surgery for biliary colic. DISCUSSION: Inspection of the resected gallbladder specimen showed that it consisted of two chambers with a single cystic duct, which communicated through a common ostium. Both chambers had cholelithiasis. There were two cystic arteries as well. Duplication of the gallbladder has an incidence of approximately 1: 4000. However, the exact incidence of this rare anomaly cannot be accurately assessed, since the only cases which have been identified are those that became symptomatic or were encountered as incidental findings during surgery, imaging studies or at autopsy. CONCLUSION: Duplication of the gallbladder is a rare congenital abnormality, which requires special attention to the biliary ductal and arterial anatomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiography is the appropriate treatment in a symptomatic gallbladder. The removal of an asymptomatic double gallbladder remains controversial.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".