European Consensus Recommendations for Direct Cholangioscopy and Pancreatoscopy Using a Modified Delphi Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Direct cholangioscopy and pancreatoscopy have become widely implemented techniques in the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms of several pancreaticobiliary disorders. This study aimed to generate general and indication-specific European consensus recommendations on cholangioscopy and pancreatoscopy. METHODS: Supported by the available literature, statements were formulated and grouped into the following categories: (1) pre-procedural considerations, (2) general technical aspects, (3) biliopancreatic stones, (4) biliary strictures, and (5) other indications. The evidence level of each statement was determined using the GRADE methodology. Cholangioscopy experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. When 80% consensus was not reached, the statement was modified based on expert feedback and subjected to an additional Delphi round. Statements were rejected if they failed to reach consensus after three Delphi rounds. RESULTS: Thirty cholangioscopy experts completed the Delphi process. Forty-two (97.6%) generated statements were accepted, of which 39 (92.9%) in the first Delphi round. 12 statements on preprocedural and periprocedural settings, 8 statements on biliopancreatic stones, 13 statements on biliary strictures, and 9 statements on other indications were accepted. CONCLUSION: Using a modified Delphi process, we developed general and indication-specific consensus recommendations for cholangioscopy to guide clinical practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".