Number, depth, and location of inadvertent pancreatic guidewire cannulations, and their association with post-ERCP pancreatitis: multicenter real-time intra-procedural data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is common. Although multiple pancreatic duct (PD) cannulations are a known risk factor for PEP, the impact of single cannulations remains controversial. We aimed to identify whether single PD cannulation is associated with PEP. Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter study in patients undergoing ERCP for biliary indications during 2021–2024, with third-party intra-procedural data recording and 30-day follow-up. PEP was defined using consensus definitions. Associations between PD cannulations and PEP were evaluated with multivariable logistic regression, with other patient- and procedure-related risk factors and preventative interventions used as covariates. Results were reported as odds ratios (ORs). Results: PEP occurred in 282 (3.8%) of 7430 ERCPs across nine centers. From multivariable analysis, PD cannulation was statistically significantly associated with PEP, with similar odds for single and multiple cannulations in first-time patients (OR 2.03 [95%CI 1.32–3.14] for single, OR 2.18 [95%CI 1.18–4.00] for ≥5 cannulations) and all patients (OR 1.97 [95%CI 1.33–2.93] for single, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.21–3.82] for ≥5). PD cannulation to the head (OR 2.09 [95%CI 1.36–3.21]) and body (OR 2.43 [95%CI 1.56–3.79]) were both associated with PEP, while side-branch cannulations alone were not (OR 1.18 [95%CI 0.64–2.06]). Conclusions: Single main PD duct cannulation was independently associated with PEP and appeared to be responsible for most of the magnitude of the association with PD cannulation. These data support the use of preventative interventions such as PD stenting in cases where the PD is inadvertently cannulated.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".