MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981279331 · doi:10.1179/016164107x240099

Mechanisms of brain edema in acute liver failure and impact of novel therapeutic interventions

2007· review· en· W1981279331 on OpenAlexaff
Javier Vaquero, Roger F. Butterworth

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurological Research · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Saint-Luc
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHyperammonemiaCerebral blood flowCerebral edemaHypertonic salineCirrhosisEdemaGlutaminePathophysiologyPharmacologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineBiologyAmino acidBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continued elucidation of the mechanisms of brain edema in acute liver failure (ALF) has established ammonia and the astrocyte as major players in its pathogenesis. The metabolism of ammonia to glutamine appears to be a requisite, and is followed by an osmotic disturbance in the brain, mitochondrial dysfunction with oxidative/nitrosative stress, and alterations of brain glucose metabolism. Cerebral blood flow (CBF) is also altered in ALF and strongly influence the development of brain edema and intracranial hypertension. Additional factors such as systemic inflammation, alterations of the brain extracellular concentration of amino acids and neurotransmitters, and others have been identified and may contribute to the cerebral alterations of ALF. Such pathophysiologic insights are reflected in the various clinical trials of novel therapeutic interventions using ammonia-lowering agents, N-acetylcysteine, hypertonic saline, indomethacin, high-volume plasmapheresis, bio-artificial liver assist devices, albumin dialysis and mild hypothermia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.363
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurological ResearchSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207