Evaluating the Timing of Cholecystectomy in Gallstone-Induced Pancreatitis: Adherence to Guidelines and Impact on Patient Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background To avoid recurrence, patients with mild to moderate gallstone-induced pancreatitis should have a cholecystectomy as soon as possible. The aim of this study was to ascertain if adherence to surgical time recommendations influences patient outcomes, especially regarding readmission rates. Methodology We performed a retrospective study of patients admitted between September 2024 and July 2025 with gallstone pancreatitis at Dr. Hassan Ghazzawi Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Comparing those treated before and after the implementation of guideline recommendations for early cholecystectomy. Demographic information, the number of admissions, and the timing of the operation were obtained from hospital records. Patients were divided into four categories: timely (index admission), moderately delayed (weeks), significantly delayed (months/years), and non-surgical. Continuous variables were summarized as means and standard deviations, whereas categorical variables were displayed as frequencies and percentages. The groups have been compared using Fisher's exact test as well as the Chi-square test. A p-value of <0.05 has been considered statistically significant. Result The study covered 47 surgical patients and 47 non-surgical patients. Following guideline adoption, the proportion of timely cholecystectomies increased (32% vs. 53%), while significantly delayed procedures dropped (39% vs. 7%), although this trend did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.075). The rate of multiple admissions was not statistically different (19% vs. 13%, p = 1.0). In the non-surgical sample, the mean number of admissions reduced (1.57 to 1.41) while recurring admissions (>1) fell (40% to 29%). The mean patient age was similar between groups (57 and 58 years). Conclusion Guideline adherence improved surgical timing and decreased recurrence of gallstone pancreatitis. Early cholecystectomy, preferably during the initial admission, should be the standard of care. Non-surgical patients remain at increased risk of readmission and require regular monitoring.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".