Effect of supportive extracorporeal treatment in liver transplantation recipients and advanced liver failure patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) and plasmapheresis (PF) were suggested as supportive therapy options in combination with standard treatment in advanced liver failure. The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of supportive extracorporeal treatment (SET) in a group of patients with advanced hepatic failure. A total of 25 patients (7 women, 18 men; mean age, 39.3+/-15.4 years; 13 were transplant recipients [6 women, 7 men; mean age, 37.7+/-16.9 years]) were included. All patients were in hepatic coma and receiving standard coma and liver failure management when they received SET. Number of SET sessions; levels of serum blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, albumin, calcium, phosphorus, ammonia, alanine and aspartate aminotransferase, and total/conjugated bilirubin; and prothrombin times (PTT) before and after SET were recorded retrospectively. 7.7+/-7.9 SET sessions were performed. Thirteen liver transplant recipients required SET for an average of 9.7+/-8.3 days after transplantation. Serum ammonia and bilirubin levels were lower after termination of supportive therapy when compared with initial levels (p<0.0001 and p<0.005 respectively). During follow-up, hepatic encephalopathy and liver failure resolved in 11 patients, while 14 patients (7 transplant recipients) died. There was no significant difference between patients in either group except that PTT was shorter in patients who survived (p<0.01). Further analyses revealed that in surviving patients, ammonia clearance was higher (p<0.01). In patients with advanced liver failure, or liver transplants, CVVHDF and/or PF could be supportive options combined with standard treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".