Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Anatomy and Physiology›Bile Ducts
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Bile Ducts

Anatomy and Physiology · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-31 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 5 min read

The channels that collect and transport the bile secretion from the bile canaliculi, the smallest branch of the biliary tract in the liver, through the bile ductules, the bile ducts out the liver, and to the gallbladder for storag

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (951 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

The channels that collect and transport the bile secretion from the bile canaliculi, the smallest branch of the biliary tract in the liver, through the bile ductules, the bile ducts out the liver, and to the gallbladder for storage.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Bile Duct; Duct, Bile; Ducts, Bile.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Biliary Tract
Narrower topics
Bile Ducts, Extrahepatic; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic
See also
Cholangiography; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Portoenterostomy, Hepatic

Related concepts

  • Bile Canaliculi
  • Biliary Tract
  • Liver
  • Gallbladder

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 53,392 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Bile Ducts” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 6,591 of them (12.3%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 27,326 records.

Reviews account for 4,768 records (8.9%) and meta-analyses for 312. Randomized controlled trials number 438 (0.8%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 27,326 records; 2000-2009: 8,994 records; 2010-2019: 10,481 records; 2020 onward: 6,591 records27,326through 19998,9942000-200910,4812010-20196,5912020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 199927,326
2000-20098,994
2010-201910,481
2020 onward6,591
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 8.9 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.6 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 0.8 percentReviews8.9% (4,768)Meta-analyses0.6% (312)Randomized controlled trials0.8% (438)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 53,392 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews4,7688.9%
Meta-analyses3120.6%
Randomized controlled trials4380.8%

Method: PubMed query "Bile Ducts"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.

Reading the evidence in anatomy and physiology

Anatomy describes how body structures are built and physiology describes how they normally work, so most findings here are descriptive or mechanistic rather than evidence about treatment. Much of what is known comes from dissection, imaging, tissue studies and experiments in animals, and measurements in healthy volunteers can differ from those in people with disease or at different ages. Normal ranges vary between individuals and populations. Check whether a result was measured in people or in another species, the age and health of the participants, and the method used.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Cholangiokines: undervalued modulators in the hepatic microenvironment
Cai X, Tacke F, Guillot A, Liu H
2023Review article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
34cc by
PMID 37261338 · DOI · PMC10229055
Patient Complexity and Bile Duct Injury After Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Mullens CL, Sheskey S, Thumma JR, Dimick JB, Norton EC, Sheetz KH
2025Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
28cc by
PMID 40131276 · DOI · PMC11937934
Modeling bile duct ischemia and reoxygenation injury in human cholangiocyte organoids for screening of novel cholangio-protective agents
Shi S, Roest HP, van den Bosch TPP, Bijvelds MJC, Boehnert MU, de Jonge J, et al.
2023Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
26cc by
PMID 36608526 · DOI · PMC9826934
Cross-Modal Assessment of Post-Cholecystectomy Symptoms: Integrating MRCP Metrics with Upper Endoscopy
Capkan DU, Sahiner IT
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
0cc by
PMID 41893834 · DOI · PMC13030843

Cholangiokines: undervalued modulators in the hepatic microenvironment [1]

Review article Cai X, Tacke F, Guillot A, Liu H · · 2023 · cited 34 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
The biliary epithelial cells, also known as cholangiocytes, line the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts, forming a barrier between intra- and extra-ductal environments.
Closing excerpt
This review summarizes recent insights into the cholangiokines under both physiological and pathological conditions, especially as they occur during liver injury-regeneration, inflammation, fibrosis and malignant transformation processes.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (133 words)

The biliary epithelial cells, also known as cholangiocytes, line the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts, forming a barrier between intra- and extra-ductal environments. Cholangiocytes are mostly known to modulate bile composition and transportation. In hepatobiliary diseases, bile duct injury leads to drastic alterations in cholangiocyte phenotypes and their release of soluble mediators, which can vary depending on the original insult and cellular states (quiescence, senescence, or proliferation). The cholangiocyte-secreted cytokines (also termed cholangiokines) drive ductular cell proliferation, portal inflammation and fibrosis, and carcinogenesis. Hence, despite the previous consensus that cholangiocytes are bystanders in liver diseases, their diverse secretome plays critical roles in modulating the intrahepatic microenvironment. This review summarizes recent insights into the cholangiokines under both physiological and pathological conditions, especially as they occur during liver injury-regeneration, inflammation, fibrosis and malignant transformation processes.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 37261338 · DOI · PMC10229055

Patient Complexity and Bile Duct Injury After Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy [2]

Research article Mullens CL, Sheskey S, Thumma JR, Dimick JB, Norton EC, Sheetz KH · · 2025 · cited 28 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
ImportanceRecent evidence suggests higher bile duct injury rates for patients undergoing robotic-assisted cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Closing excerpt
These findings suggest that patient selection may not be the cause of differences in bile duct injury rates among patients undergoing robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (357 words)

ImportanceRecent evidence suggests higher bile duct injury rates for patients undergoing robotic-assisted cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Proponents of the robotic-assisted approach contend that this may be due to selection of higher-risk and more complex patients being offered robotic-assisted cholecystectomy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative safety of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy among patients with varying levels of risk for adverse postoperative outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study assessed fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years who underwent cholecystectomy between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021. Data analysis was performed between June and August 2024. Medicare beneficiaries were separated into model training and experimental cohorts (60% and 40%, respectively). Random forest modeling and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator techniques were then used in a risk model training cohort to stratify beneficiaries based on their risk of a composite outcome of postoperative adverse events consisting of 90-day postoperative complications, serious complications, reoperations, and rehospitalization in an independent experimental cohort.ExposuresRobotic-assisted vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome of interest was bile duct injury requiring operative intervention after cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were composite outcomes from cholecystectomy composed of any complications, serious complications, reoperations, and readmissions.ResultsA total of 737 908 individuals (mean [SD] age, 74.7 [9.9] years; 387 563 [52.5%] female) were included, with 295 807 in an experimental cohort and 442 101 in a training cohort. Bile duct injury was higher among patients undergoing robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy in each subgroup (low-risk group: relative risk [RR], 3.14; 95% CI, 2.35-3.94; medium-risk group: RR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-3.92; and high-risk group: RR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.34-3.88). Overall, composite outcomes between the 2 groups were similar for robotic-assisted cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12), aside from reoperation, which was overall higher in the robotic-assisted group compared with the laparoscopic group (RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.35-1.59).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries, bile duct injury rates were higher among low-, medium-, and high-risk surgical candidates after robotic-assisted cholecystectomy. These findings suggest that patient selection may not be the cause of differences in bile duct injury rates among patients undergoing robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40131276 · DOI · PMC11937934

Modeling bile duct ischemia and reoxygenation injury in human cholangiocyte organoids for screening of novel cholangio-protective agents [3]

Research article Shi S, Roest HP, van den Bosch TPP, Bijvelds MJC, Boehnert MU, de Jonge J, et al. · · 2023 · cited 26 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundIschemia of the bile duct is a common feature in liver disease and transplantation, which represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality, especially after liver transplantation.
Closing excerpt
201706230252.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (174 words)

BackgroundIschemia of the bile duct is a common feature in liver disease and transplantation, which represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality, especially after liver transplantation. Detailed knowledge of its pathogenesis remains incomplete due to the lack of appropriate in vitro models.MethodsTo recapitulate biliary damage induced by ischemia and reperfusion in vitro, human intrahepatic cholangiocyte organoids (ICOs) were grown at low oxygen levels of 1% up to 72 h, followed by re-oxygenation at normal levels.FindingsICOs stressed by ischemia and subsequent re-oxygenation represented the dynamic change in biliary cell proliferation, upregulation of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT)-associated markers, and the evocation of phase-dependent cell death programs similar to what is described in patients. Clinical-grade alpha-1 antitrypsin was identified as a potent inhibitor of both ischemia-induced apoptosis and necroptosis.InterpretationThese findings demonstrate that ICOs recapitulate ischemic cholangiopathy in vitro and enable drug assessment studies for the discovery of new therapeutics for ischemic cholangiopathies.FundingDutch Digestive FoundationMLDS D16-26; TKI-LSH (Topconsortium Kennis en Innovatie-Life Sciences & Health) grant RELOAD, EMC-LSH19002; Medical Delta program "Regenerative Medicine 4D"; China Scholarship Council No. 201706230252.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 36608526 · DOI · PMC9826934

Cross-Modal Assessment of Post-Cholecystectomy Symptoms: Integrating MRCP Metrics with Upper Endoscopy [4]

Research article Capkan DU, Sahiner IT · · 2026

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Background/objectivesPost-cholecystectomy syndrome (PCS) remains diagnostically challenging due to overlapping biliary and non-biliary causes.
Closing excerpt
Further prospective validation is warranted.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (287 words)

Background/objectivesPost-cholecystectomy syndrome (PCS) remains diagnostically challenging due to overlapping biliary and non-biliary causes. This study aimed to evaluate whether common bile duct (CBD) diameter measured by MRCP can serve as a practical triage parameter in symptomatic PCS patients and to define a data-supported threshold for predicting clinically relevant biliary pathology. Secondary objectives included assessing correlations between MRCP findings and upper endoscopic features.MethodsIn this retrospective single-center study, symptomatic adults undergoing upper endoscopy and MRCP were analyzed. Demographic, clinical, biochemical, radiologic, and endoscopic variables were recorded. Diagnostic performance was assessed using ROC analysis, and independent predictors of biliary dilatation were evaluated with multivariable logistic regression.ResultsWe analyzed 141 symptomatic post-cholecystectomy patients (mean age 58.2 ± 16.3 years; 67.4% female; median time since surgery 18 [9-36] months). Major symptoms: abdominal pain 84.9%, dyspepsia/bloating 47.5%, nausea/vomiting 22.3%, diarrhea 15.1%. CBD diameter measurements were available in the MRCP subgroup (n = 45); ERCP was performed selectively (n = 12). MRCP findings: CBD ≥ 7 mm 31.9%, biliary dilatation 14.9%, stricture 2.8%, suspected Oddi dysfunction 11.3%, postoperative complications 39.7%. Endoscopy: mucosal inflammation 91.5%; normal 8.5%. Significant correlations included CBD diameter vs. mucosal inflammation (r = 0.32, p = 0.001), dilatation vs. bile reflux (r = 0.28, p = 0.004), and Oddi dysfunction vs. papillary edema (r = 0.41, p = 0.001). CBD diameter showed the best diagnostic performance (AUC 0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.90; cut-off ≥ 8.0 mm; sensitivity 78.3%; specificity 81.5%; p p = 0.007).ConclusionsIn symptomatic post-cholecystectomy patients, MRCP-measured CBD diameter provides a useful metric for risk stratification, with a threshold of ≥8 mm identifying patients more likely to harbor biliary pathology. These findings support a structured diagnostic approach that prioritizes noninvasive imaging while reserving ERCP for selected cases. Further prospective validation is warranted.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41893834 · DOI · PMC13030843

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Treatment and Prognosis for Patients With Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [5]
    Mavros MN, Economopoulos KP, Alexiou VG, Pawlik TM · JAMA Surg · 2014 · cited 639 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Genomic and genetic characterization of cholangiocarcinoma identifies therapeutic targets for tyrosine kinase inhibitors [6]
    Andersen JB, Spee B, Blechacz BR, Avital I, Komuta M, Barbour A, et al. · Gastroenterology · 2012 · cited 461 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline [7]
    Manes G, Paspatis G, Aabakken L, Anderloni A, Arvanitakis M, Ah-Soune P, et al. · Endoscopy · 2019 · cited 443 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Risk factors for intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis [8]
    Clements O, Eliahoo J, Kim JU, Taylor-Robinson SD, Khan SA · J Hepatol · 2020 · cited 425 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Cholangiocyte pathobiology [9]
    Banales JM, Huebert RC, Karlsen T, Strazzabosco M, LaRusso NF, Gores GJ · Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol · 2019 · cited 411 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Ductular Reaction in Liver Diseases: Pathological Mechanisms and Translational Significances [10]
    Sato K, Marzioni M, Meng F, Francis H, Glaser S, Alpini G · Hepatology · 2019 · cited 319 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Cai X, Tacke F, Guillot A, Liu H. Cholangiokines: undervalued modulators in the hepatic microenvironment. . 2023. PMID 37261338 · DOI · PMC10229055
  2. Mullens CL, Sheskey S, Thumma JR, Dimick JB, Norton EC, Sheetz KH. Patient Complexity and Bile Duct Injury After Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. . 2025. PMID 40131276 · DOI · PMC11937934
  3. Shi S, Roest HP, van den Bosch TPP, Bijvelds MJC, Boehnert MU, de Jonge J, et al.. Modeling bile duct ischemia and reoxygenation injury in human cholangiocyte organoids for screening of novel cholangio-protective agents. . 2023. PMID 36608526 · DOI · PMC9826934
  4. Capkan DU, Sahiner IT. Cross-Modal Assessment of Post-Cholecystectomy Symptoms: Integrating MRCP Metrics with Upper Endoscopy. . 2026. PMID 41893834 · DOI · PMC13030843
  5. Mavros MN, Economopoulos KP, Alexiou VG, Pawlik TM. Treatment and Prognosis for Patients With Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2014. PMID 24718873 · DOI
  6. Andersen JB, Spee B, Blechacz BR, Avital I, Komuta M, Barbour A, et al.. Genomic and genetic characterization of cholangiocarcinoma identifies therapeutic targets for tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Gastroenterology. 2012. PMID 22178589 · DOI · PMC3413201
  7. Manes G, Paspatis G, Aabakken L, Anderloni A, Arvanitakis M, Ah-Soune P, et al.. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2019. PMID 30943551 · DOI
  8. Clements O, Eliahoo J, Kim JU, Taylor-Robinson SD, Khan SA. Risk factors for intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hepatol. 2020. PMID 31536748 · DOI
  9. Banales JM, Huebert RC, Karlsen T, Strazzabosco M, LaRusso NF, Gores GJ. Cholangiocyte pathobiology. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019. PMID 30850822 · DOI · PMC6563606
  10. Sato K, Marzioni M, Meng F, Francis H, Glaser S, Alpini G. Ductular Reaction in Liver Diseases: Pathological Mechanisms and Translational Significances. Hepatology. 2019. PMID 30070383 · DOI · PMC6324973

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-31.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Cystic DuctAnatomy and Physiology
  • Common Bile DuctAnatomy and Physiology
  • Sphincter of OddiAnatomy and Physiology
  • Ampulla of VaterAnatomy and Physiology
  • Gastrointestinal TractAnatomy and Physiology
  • BileAnatomy and Physiology

All 542 articles in Anatomy and Physiology →

At a glance

53,392
PubMed records on this heading
12%
published since 2020
4,768
review articles
438
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-31; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Cystic DuctAnatomy and Physiology
  • Common Bile DuctAnatomy and Physiology
  • Sphincter of OddiAnatomy and Physiology
  • Ampulla of VaterAnatomy and Physiology
  • Gastrointestinal TractAnatomy and Physiology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support