Efficacy and safety of a single-use cholangioscope for percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and study aims Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy (PTCS) is a management option for patients in whom peroral cholangioscopy or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) fail. We conducted a case series on the efficacy and safety of PTCS using a cholangiopancreatoscope cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2020. Patients and methods Fifty adult patients scheduled for PTCS or other cholangioscopic procedure were enrolled at seven academic medical centers and followed for 30 days after the index procedure. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of clinical intent by 30 days after the index PTCS procedure. Secondary endpoints included technical success, procedure time, endoscopist ratings of device attributes on a scale of 1 to 10 (best), and serious adverse events (SAEs) related to the device or procedure. Results Patients had a mean age of 64.7±15.9 years, and 60.0% (30/50) were male. Forty-four patients (88.0%) achieved clinical intent by 30 days post-procedure. The most common reasons for the percutaneous approach were past (38.0%) or anticipated (30.0%) failed ERCP. The technical success rate was 96.0% (48/50), with a mean procedure time of 37.6 minutes (SD, 25.1; range 5.0–125.0). The endoscopist rated the overall ability of the cholangioscope to complete the procedure as a mean 9.2 (SD, 1.6; range 1.0–10.0). Two patients (4.0%) experienced related SAEs, one of whom had a fatal periprocedure aspiration. Conclusions PTCS is an important endoscopic option for selected patients with impossible retrograde access or in whom ERCP fails. Because of the associated risk, this technique should be practiced by highly trained endoscopists at high-volume centers. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04580940)
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".