Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ascites is a common complication of liver cirrhosis associated with a poor prognosis. The treatment of ascites requires dietary sodium restriction and the judicious use of distal and loop diuretics, sequential at an earlier stage of ascites, and a combination at a later stage of ascites. The diagnosis of refractory ascites requires the demonstration of diuretic non-responsiveness, despite dietary sodium restriction, or the presence of diuretic-related complications. Patients with refractory ascites require second-line treatments of repeat large-volume paracentesis (LVP) or the insertion of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and assessment for liver transplantation. Careful patient selection is paramount for TIPS to be successful as a treatment for ascites. Patients not suitable for TIPS insertion should receive LVP. The use of albumin as a volume expander is recommended for LVP of >5-6 L to prevent the development of circulatory dysfunction, although the clinical significance of post-paracentesis circulatory dysfunction is still debated. Significant mortality is still being observed in cirrhotic patients with ascites and relatively preserved liver and renal function, as indicated by a lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. It is proposed that patients with lower MELD scores and ascites should receive additional points in calculating their priority for liver transplantation. Potential new treatment options for ascites include the use of various vasoconstrictors, vasopressin V(2) receptor antagonists, or the insertion of a peritoneo-vesical shunt, all of which could possibly improve the management of ascites.
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) | 0.002 | 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".