MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098124647 · doi:10.1186/cc11188

Hepatorenal syndrome: the 8th international consensus conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group

2012· review· en· W2098124647 on OpenAlexaff
Mitra K. Nadim, John A. Kellum, Andrew Davenport, Florence Wong, Connie L. Davis, Neesh Pannu, Ashita Tolwani, Rinaldo Bellomo, Yuri Genyk

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversità degli Studi di PadovaMonash UniversityUniversity College LondonIkariaUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of WashingtonOtsuka PharmaceuticalGeorge Washington UniversityUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsMedicineHepatorenal syndromeIntensive care medicineMEDLINEConsensus conferenceRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewDialysisCirrhosisFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Renal dysfunction is a common complication in patients with end-stage cirrhosis. Since the original publication of the definition and diagnostic criteria for the hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), there have been major advances in our understanding of its pathogenesis. The prognosis of patients with cirrhosis who develop HRS remains poor, with a median survival without liver transplantation of less than six months. However, a number of pharmacological and other therapeutic strategies have now become available which offer the ability to prevent or treat renal dysfunction more effectively in this setting. Accordingly, we sought to review the available evidence, make recommendations and delineate key questions for future studies. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review of the literature using Medline, PubMed and Web of Science, data provided by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the bibliographies of key reviews. We determined a list of key questions and convened a two-day consensus conference to develop summary statements via a series of alternating breakout and plenary sessions. In these sessions, we identified supporting evidence and generated recommendations and/or directions for future research. RESULTS: Of the 30 questions considered, we found inadequate evidence for the majority of questions and our recommendations were mainly based on expert opinion. There was insufficient evidence to grade three questions, but we were able to develop a consensus definition for acute kidney injury in patients with cirrhosis and provide consensus recommendations for future investigations to address key areas of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a paucity of sufficiently powered prospectively randomized trials, we were able to establish an evidence-based appraisal of this field and develop a set of consensus recommendations to standardize care and direct further research for patients with cirrhosis and 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.126
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1260.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.010
Bibliometrics0.0140.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0090.008
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations192
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207