Damping index of Doppler hepatic vein waveform to assess the severity of portal hypertension and response to propranolol in liver cirrhosis: a prospective nonrandomized study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alterations in the Doppler hepatic vein (HV) waveform are associated with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. We prospectively evaluated the correlation between the extent of abnormal Doppler HV waveforms expressed as damping index (DI) and the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and response to propranolol in patients with cirrhosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 76 patients with cirrhosis (69 men and seven women), both DI of Doppler HV waveform and HVPG were measured, and the relationship between them was analysed. DI was calculated by the minimum velocity/maximum velocity of the HV waveform. An HVPG>12 mmHg was defined as severe portal hypertension. In a subgroup of 19 patients receiving propranolol, changes in both DI and HVPG were evaluated after propranolol administration for 3 months. One author (S. K. B.) performed all DI of Doppler HV waveform studies. RESULTS: Abnormal HV waveforms were seen in 66 of 76 patients (86.8%). DI significantly correlated with the grade of HVPG, i.e. with higher HVPG increased DI was observed (P<0.01). By logistic regression analysis, DI>0.6 was significantly more likely to be severe portal hypertension (odds ratio: 14.19, 95% confidence interval: 4.07-49.55). Receiver-operating characteristic curve according to the value of 0.6 of DI showed a sensitivity of 75.9% and a specificity of 81.8% for the presence of severe portal hypertension. In 19 patients of the propranolol subgroup, change of DI following propranolol treatment also significantly correlated with that of HVPG (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Damping index of the HV waveform by Doppler ultrasonography might be a non-invasive supplementary tool in evaluating the severity of portal hypertension and in responding to propranolol in patients with liver cirrhosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".