Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracorporeal support has been advocated for patients with acute and chronic liver failure. Patients with acute liver failure and those with decompensated cirrhosis can be broadly divided into two groups. The first group comprises those with acute liver failure and ongoing hepatic necrosis, and the second, those with long-standing chronic decompensation admitted with one or more complications of liver failure, such as encephalopathy without any evidence of a precipitating factor or accompanying acute deterioration of liver function. This second group includes patients with acute liver failure, where the insult causing hepatic necrosis has been resolved, and those patients with chronic decompensation who suffer another insult to the liver, such as acute infection or variceal hemorrhage that causes further liver injury in the setting of multiorgan failure. These two groups are likely to have different outcomes and may need to be managed differently. In the first group, liver transplantation is the only possible long-term therapeutic option, whereas in the second group, other possibilities such as extracorporeal liver support systems and/or medical therapy may allow these patients to return to their previous state before the acute insult. Over time extracorporeal support has expanded from simple peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis, to the development of circuits designed primarily to remove both water and lipid-soluble toxins and, in addition, bioartificial devices to provide replacement synthetic hepatic function. Because many of the patients with an acute liver insult have ongoing chronic liver disease and develop hepatorenal syndrome, this group of patients has been targeted by several groups to study the role of liver support systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".