MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041030643 · doi:10.1186/1471-230x-14-185

MELD score and antibiotics use are predictors of length of stay in patients hospitalized with hepatic encephalopathy

2014· article· en· W2041030643 on OpenAlexaff
Valérie Martel‐Laferrière, Caitlin Homberger, Kian Bichoupan, Douglas T. Dieterich

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Gastroenterology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRifaximinHepatic encephalopathyHepatologyInternal medicineConfoundingAntibioticsCirrhosisEmergency medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) represents a significant burden to the healthcare system. The aim of this study was to determine factors influencing the hospital length of stay among patients hospitalized with HE. METHODS: A data warehouse query was performed to identify 316 patients with a first hospitalization during which HE occurred, between April 2010 and February 2012. Baseline and hospitalization characteristics were collected with IRB approval. A negative binomial multivariable model was used to control for potential confounders on the length of hospitalization. RESULTS: Median age was 59 years, and 60.4% of admitted patients were male. The median MELD score was 22 (IQR: 17-28). Median length of stay was 8 days (IQR: 3.25-14.25). After controlling for MELD score, female gender (2.2 days; p = 0.04), being initially admitted for a reason other than HE (liver-related: 7.6 days; p < 0.01 and non liver-related 10.7 days; p < 0.01) and receiving antibiotics other than rifaximin (10.5 days; p < 0.01) were associated with longer length of stay whereas hepatitis C (-3.1 days; p < 0.01) was associated with a shorter length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: MELD score, gender, use of antibiotics other than rifaximin, reason for admission and hepatitis C are predictors readily available in clinic that can help identify patients at risk for longer length of stay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GastroenterologySame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207