Endoscopic Biliary Drainage in Malignant Biliary Strictures: A Prospective Analysis Based on Real-World Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic biliary drainage has emerged as the standard treatment for palliative drainage in malignant biliary strictures (MBS). Methods: This prospective study aimed to investigate the outcomes of patients diagnosed with MBS who underwent biliary drainage through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) at Complejo Hospitalario Metropolitano. The primary goals were to evaluate the stent dysfunction (SD) and mortality over a 12-month follow-up period. We evaluated the technical and functional deployment success rates according to the stricture location and type of stent used. Results: Out of 191 patients screened, 147 were eligible for inclusion. Distal strictures exhibited significantly higher technical (96.3%) and functional (75.8%) success deployment rates compared to hilar strictures (32.4% technical, 58.8% functional). The overall incidence of SD reached 46.9%, while mortality was 43.5%. Notably, complications varied by stricture type, with bacteremia predominating in hilar stricture cases. Conclusion: The findings from our prospective study affirm a commendably high rate of successful endoscopic stenting interventions along with a lower incidence of adverse events in patients suffering from MBS. Conversely, it is imperative to acknowledge that the endoscopic management of malignant hilar strictures necessitates a more individualized approach due to the elevated complication rates and increased likelihood of SD observed in our 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".