On-site ERCP availability and cholangitis outcomes: Retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and study aims: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is important in acute cholangitis (AC) management but is not available at all hospitals. The association between on-site ERCP availability and cholangitis outcomes is unknown. Patients and methods: We included adults diagnosed with AC at 27 hospitals in Ontario through the GEMINI network. We collected data on demographics, clinical and laboratory values, and interventions. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, readmission rates, and requirement for percutaneous or surgical decompression. We used multivariable regression analyses to assess the impact of on-site ERCP availability on the primary and secondary outcomes with adjustment for relevant variables. Results: Our cohort included 4492 patients with a median age of 75. Patients at ERCP sites had higher unadjusted rates of undergoing ERCP (55.7% at ERCP sites, 40.8% at non-ERCP sites). Patients at ERCP sites compared with non-ERCP sites did not have significantly different in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86-5.55). Compared with non-ERCP sites, patients at ERCP sites with underlying stricturing biliary disease or pancreaticobiliary malignancy (aOR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.14-13.58) or severe cholangitis (aOR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.17-4.02) had higher odds of in-hospital mortality. In a post-hoc propensity score-based analysis, there was no significant difference between patients at ERCP sites compared with those at non-ERCP sites for in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: Patients at ERCP sites compared with non-ERCP sites did not have significantly different mortality. Subgroups of patients with underlying stricturing biliary disease or pancreaticobiliary malignancy and severe cholangitis, who have higher mortality at ERCP sites, warrant further study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".