Severe haemorrhage following abdominal paracentesis for ascites in patients with liver disease
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".