MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Review article: the design of clinical trials in hepatic encephalopathy - an International Society for Hepatic Encephalopathy and Nitrogen Metabolism (ISHEN) consensus statement

2011· review· en· W1486067581 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsHepatic encephalopathyMedicineCirrhosisEncephalopathyIntensive care medicineHyperammonemiaClinical trialRifaximinInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The clinical classification of hepatic encephalopathy is largely subjective, which has led to difficulties in designing trials in this field. AIMS: To review the current classification of hepatic encephalopathy and to develop consensus guidelines on the design and conduct of future clinical trials. METHODS: A round table was convened at the 14th International Society for Hepatic Encephalopathy and Nitrogen Metabolism (ISHEN) meeting. Key discussion points were the nomenclature of hepatic encephalopathy and the selection of patients, standards of care and end-points for assessing the treatment and secondary prevention of hepatic encephalopathy. RESULTS: It was generally agreed that severity assessment of hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis, whether made clinically or more objectively, should be continuous rather than categorical, and a system for assessing the SONIC (Spectrum of Neuro-cognitive Impairment in Cirrhosis) was proposed. Within this system, patients currently classified as having minimal hepatic encephalopathy and Grade I hepatic encephalopathy would be classified as having Covert hepatic encephalopathy, whereas those with apparent clinical abnormalities would continue to be classified as overt hepatic encephalopathy. Some aspects of the terminology require further debate. Consensus was also reached on the patient populations, standards of care and endpoints to assess clinical trial outcomes. However, some compromises had to be made as there is considerable inter- and intravariability in the availability of some of the more objective surrogate performance markers. CONCLUSIONS: The objectives of the round table were met. Robust, defendable guidelines for the conduct of future studies into hepatic encephalopathy have been provided. Outstanding issues are few and will continue to be discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.316
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it