Severe haemorrhage following abdominal paracentesis for ascites in patients with liver disease
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bleeding is a recognized complication of abdominal paracentesis. Special concern has been raised when it is performed in patients with liver failure because of coagulation disorders and collaterals in the abdominal wall. AIM: To assess the clinical characteristics of patients who developed haemorrhagic complications after paracentesis. METHODS: We reviewed all cases of severe haemorrhage occurring after paracentesis in patients admitted to the Liver Unit of our institution between 1994 and 2004. RESULTS: Nine cases were identified among 4729 procedures. The occurrence of severe haemorrhage represented 0.19% of all procedures with a death rate of 0.016%. Bleeding was not related to operator experience, elevated international normalized ratio or low platelets. It occurred in patients with high model for end-stage liver disease and Child-Pugh scores. Furthermore, some degree of renal failure was present in all but one patient. CONCLUSION: Severe haemorrhage after abdominal paracentesis in patients with liver disease occurs in 0.2% of cases. It occurs in patients with severe liver failure and is often associated with significant pre-existing renal dysfunction.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it