Furosemide–Induced Natriuresis As A Test to Identify Cirrhotic Patients With Refractory Ascites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diagnosis of refractory ascites in cirrhotic patients carries a poor prognosis and liver transplantation should always be considered in this situation. Identification of patients who will not respond to diuretic therapy usually requires several weeks of observation during which a trial of diuretics is instituted using stepwise increases in dosage in order to classify ascites as refractory. In the present study we evaluated the effect of a single dose of 80 mg intravenous furosemide on urinary sodium excretion over 8 hours in cirrhotic patients with ascites responsive to diuretic treatment (group 1; n = 14) and patients with refractory ascites (group 2; n = 15). The test was performed after 3 days without diuretics and patients were on a 80 mEq sodium/day diet. Refractory ascites was defined by the absence of response after 3 months of high doses of diuretics (spironolactone 200 mg/d + furosemide 80 mg/d + metolazone 2.5 mg/d) and the need for repeated paracentesis. The two groups had similar degrees of liver and renal dysfunction as assessed by the Pugh score and creatinine clearance. The effects of furosemide on 8-hour natriuresis was much higher in patients with responsive ascites as compared with patients with refractory ascites (125 +/- 46 vs. 30 +/- 16 mEq; mean +/- SD; P <.0001). A natriuresis lower than 50 mEq/8 hours was observed in all group-2 patients as compared with none from group 1. The present study shows that patients with refractory ascites can be identified quickly and accurately by using this simple furosemide-induced natriuresis test, which could be very useful to select patients for liver transplantation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".