MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fulminant hepatic failure secondary to acetaminophen poisoning: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic criteria determining the need for liver transplantation

2003· review· en· W2066723064 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiver transplantationFulminant hepatic failureProthrombin timeCreatinineConfidence intervalInternal medicineHepatic encephalopathyTransplantationAcetaminophenGastroenterologyacetaminophen overdoseAnesthesiaCirrhosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To summarize and compare different prognostic criteria used to determine need for liver transplantation in patients with fulminant hepatic failure secondary to acetaminophen poisoning. DATA SOURCES: Studies published in the literature that investigated criteria for hepatic transplantation secondary to acetaminophen-induced liver failure as identified by a preestablished MEDLINE strategy (1966 through October 2001). STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if 2 x 2 tables could be reconstructed and if they did not assume that patients undergoing transplantation would have eventually died had they not received the transplant. DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant articles were reviewed by two authors independently. Discrepancies or disagreements, if any, on the inclusion or exclusion of studies were resolved by consulting the third author. DATA SYNTHESIS: King's criteria (pH < 7.30 or prothrombin time of >100 secs plus creatinine of >300 micromol/L plus encephalopathy grade of > or =3) were evaluated in nine studies, pH < 7.30 in four, prothrombin time of >100 secs in three, prothrombin time of >100 secs plus creatinine of >300 micromol/L plus encephalopathy grade of > or =3 in three, creatinine of >300 micromol/L in two, and one each for increase in prothrombin time day 4, factor V of <10%, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of >15, and Gc-globulin of <100 mg/L. King's criteria were more sensitive than pH: 69% (95% confidence interval, 63-75) vs. 57% (95% confidence interval, 44-68). Their specificities were, however, comparable: 92% (95% confidence interval, 81-97) vs. 89% (95% confidence interval, 62-97). APACHE II score of >15 had the highest positive likelihood ratio (16.4) and the lowest negative likelihood ratio (0.19) but was evaluated in only one study. The accuracy measures of all other criteria were lower than that of King's criteria or pH < 7.30. CONCLUSIONS: Presently, available criteria are not very sensitive and may miss patients requiring transplantation. Future studies should further evaluate the efficacy of the APACHE II criteria.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.238 · 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