Etiology and Outcome of Acute Liver Failure: Experience from a Liver Transplantation Centre in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute liver failure is a rare condition in which massive liver injury is associated with the rapid development of hepatic encephalopathy. Although viral hepatitis and drug-induced liver injury are the most common causes, no specific etiology is found in a substantial proportion of cases reported from Europe and the United States. AIM: To determine the etiology and outcome of patients with acute liver failure in the authors' institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The charts of 81 consecutive patients admitted to Saint-Luc between 1991 and 1999 were reviewed. RESULTS: The etiology was viral in 27 cases (33.2%), toxic or drug-induced in 22 (27.2%), of unknown origin in 22 (27.2%) and due to various causes in 10 (12.3%) (autoimmune, vascular, cancer). Of the 81 patients, 16% survived without liver transplantation, and 84% died or underwent liver transplantation. Survival without liver transplantation differed according to the mode of presentation: the survival rate was 27% in patients with hyperacute liver failure, 7% in those with acute liver failure and 0% in those with subacute liver failure. Among the 38 patients who underwent liver transplantation, survival one year after transplantation was 71%. In the 30 patients who died without liver transplantation, the main causes of death were cerebral edema and sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: Acute liver failure is associated with a high mortality, and liver transplantation is the treatment of choice. In a significant proportion of cases, the etiology remains undetermined and is probably related to yet unidentified hepatotropic viruses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".