Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letter to: EUS-guided antegrade pancreatic duct access: Burning questions Endosc Int Open 2023; 11(08): E722-E723 DOI: 10.1055/a-2125-4049 We thank Dr. Bronswijk et al. for their very astute and thoughtful comments. We read with great interest their technique to facilitate transpapillary wiring, using a 6F cystotome to enter the pancreatic duct (PD), and subsequently assist in manipulating the direction of the wire [ 1 ]. Certainly, this would be of value, as although a wire was able to be placed in the PD in 94 patients in our series (85%), only 57 of those patients were able to have the wire manipulated across the papilla. However, one of the barriers to this technique locally would be access to the instruments of interest. To our knowledge, there is no approved 6F cystotome for use in North America, thus, our current cystotome is 10F (Cook Endoscopy, United States). As the authors pointed out, European guidelines suggest a rendezvous approach over direct transgastric stenting when possible, highlighting the reduced complication rates [ 2 ]. However, we are unsure how the adverse event (AE) rate would be affected if a cystotome (particularly a 10F cystotome) were used regularly to facilitate transpapillary rendezvous. Theoretically, so long as drainage is achieved via transpapillary or transgastric means, the risk of duct disruption or leak should be low. Currently, we have only used the cystotome in select cases to facilitate transgastric stent deployment. However, should data show favorable safety and technical success with the 10F cystotome, we would certainly consider adopting this technique in the future. We also read with interest the authors’ usage of minor transpapillary rendezvous with a non-significant increase in clinical success rates and comparable AE rate to major papilla rendezvous [ 1 ]. In our series, this was only performed on one patient (0.9%), but we agree that any transpapillary access (be it minor or major) into the duodenum would be preferable to avoid the risks of transgastric stenting. Although not touched on in detail in our manuscript, complete ductal clearance is certainly another key piece of sustained clinical success [ 3 ]. Single-operator pancreatoscopy has been shown to be effective for clearance of stones, but we remain cautious with its use due to the AE profile [ 4 ]. Locally, patients with a significant stone burden will receive extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy followed by attempted retrograde clearance, with variable degrees of success. Finally, we agree with the authors regarding the necessity of comparisons to surgical interventions. With more techniques in the endoscopic toolbox, and improved operator experience, we are excited to see if endoscopic therapies can prove to be an effective and safe alternative to major surgery in benign pancreatic disease. Publication History Received: 22 June 2023 Accepted: 29 June 2023 Article published online: 07 August 2023 © 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
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".