MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134481878 · doi:10.1053/jhep.2003.50315

The Management of Ascites in Cirrhosis: Report on the Consensus Conference of the International Ascites Club

2003· review· en· W2134481878 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

VenueHepatology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAscitesMedicineParacentesisCirrhosisHepatorenal syndromeLiver transplantationInternal medicineGastroenterologyPortal hypertensionIntensive care medicineSurgeryTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ascites is a common complication of cirrhosis, and heralds a new phase of hepatic decompensation in the progression of the cirrhotic process. The development of ascites carries a significant worsening of the prognosis. It is important to diagnose noncirrhotic causes of ascites such as malignancy, tuberculosis, and pancreatic ascites since these occur with increased frequency in patients with liver disease. The International Ascites Club, representing the spectrum of clinical practice from North America to Europe, have developed guidelines by consensus in the management of cirrhotic ascites from the early ascitic stage to the stage of refractory ascites. Mild to moderate ascites should be managed by modest salt restriction and diuretic therapy with spironolactone or an equivalent in the first instance. Diuretics should be added in a stepwise fashion while maintaining sodium restriction. Gross ascites should be treated with therapeutic paracentesis followed by colloid volume expansion, and diuretic therapy. Refractory ascites is managed by repeated large volume paracentesis or insertion of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPS). Successful placement of TIPS results in improved renal function, sodium excretion, and general well-being of the patient but without proven survival benefits. Clinicians caring for these patients should be aware of the potential complications of each treatment modality and be prepared to discontinue diuretics or not proceed with TIPS placement should complications or contraindications develop. Liver transplantation should be considered for all ascitic patients, and this should preferably be performed prior to the development of renal dysfunction to prevent further compromise of their prognosis.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.258 · 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