Pediatric End‐stage Liver Disease Score in Acute Liver Failure to Assess Poor Prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although establishing accurate prognosis in acute liver failure (ALF) is of paramount importance, prognostic scoring systems still fail to achieve success. The pediatric end-stage liver disease (PELD) score has been used as a predictor of mortality in children with chronic liver disease listed for liver transplantation (LT); however, experience with the PELD score in ALF is limited. The goal of the present study was to investigate the prognostic accuracy of the PELD score in children with ALF. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PELD score was calculated based on results of blood tests obtained at hospital admission from June 1999 to January 2009, in 40 consecutive patients younger than 18 years who presented with ALF. Poor outcome was defined as LT or death. RESULTS: Mean (±SD) age of patients was 5.3 ± 4.4 years (range 6 months-17 years); 52.5% were girls (n = 21). Etiologies of ALF were hepatitis A in 42.5% (17), indeterminate in 35% (14), autoimmune hepatitis in 17.5% (type 1 12.5% [n5], type 2 5% [n2]), and toxic in 5% (2). Mean PELD score was 34.92 ± 10.48 (range 6-55). PELD scores obtained on admission were significantly higher among nonsurvivors (39.8 ± 9.5) and recipients of an LT (39 ± 7.1) compared with those who survived without LT (31.3 ± 3) (P < 0.001). A cutoff of 33 in PELD score using receiver operating characteristic curves showed 81% specificity and 86% sensitivity for poor outcome (positive predictive value 92% and negative predictive value 69%; area under curve 0.88 95% confidence interval 0.77-1.0; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PELD score obtained upon admission may be of help to establish the optimal timing for LT evaluation and listing. Further validation in larger and more diverse populations is needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".