The volume of ERCPs per endoscopist is associated with a higher technical success and a lower post-ERCP pancreatitis rates. A prospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: conflicting results have been reported regarding the influence of the annual volume of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on outcome. OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the influence of case volume on ERCP outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: an analysis of a prospective database was performed, comparing the outcomes of ERCP in three consecutive periods defined by the number of endoscopists performing ERCP: five endoscopists in period I (P1), four in period II (P2) and three in period III (P3). Only patients with biliary ERCP in accessible and naïve papilla were included. Primary variables were cannulation rates and adverse effects (AE). The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) complexity grades III and IV were considered as highly complex procedures. RESULTS: a total of 2,561 patients were included: 727 (P1), 972 (P2) and 862 (P3). There were no differences in age and sex between groups (p > 0.05). The cannulation rate was significantly higher in P2 and P3: 92.4 % vs 93.3 % vs 93 % (p = 0.037). The AE rate was 13.8 %, 12.6 % and 10.3 % (p > 0.05), respectively. The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly lower in P3: 8.5 %, 7.3 % and 5 % (p = 0.01). The rate of complex procedures was 12 %, 14.8 % and 27 % (p < 0.0001), respectively. Two endoscopists participated in all periods and only one had significantly improved outcomes. Cannulation and post-ERCP pancreatitis rates remained significantly better in P3 after adjusting for sex, complexity and endoscopist. CONCLUSION: a higher annual volume of ERCP per endoscopist was associated with a higher rate of cannulation and a lower rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis, despite the greater complexity of the procedures. These beneficial effects seem to differ between endoscopists.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".