Quality of Life in Refractory Ascites: Transjugular Intrahepatic Portal-Systemic Shunting Versus Medical Therapy *
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncontrolled studies suggest that transjugular intrahepatic portal-systemic shunting (TIPS) may improve quality of life in patients with refractory ascites. We hypothesized that any improvement of quality of life in patients with TIPS would be matched in controls due to the competing effects of improved ascites and worsened hepatic encephalopathy. Thus, an analysis of quality of life was performed using original data from the North American Study for the Treatment of Refractory Ascites, a multicenter trial of 109 patients randomized to TIPS or repeated large volume paracentesis (LVP) for refractory ascites. Short form 36 (SF-36) surveys were completed at baseline and at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Variables analyzed were: randomization group, number of LVP performed, cumulative volume from LVP, shortness of breath, abdominal distention, abdominal pain, diuretic usage, confusion, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits. Outcomes were changes in physical component scale (PCS) and mental component scale (MCS) of SF-36 results. We constructed multivariable, mixed effects models, including randomization group and baseline MCS and PCS. Changes in PCS and MCS from baseline were similar between the two randomization groups. In multivariate analysis, PCS improvement was associated with lack of confusion, improved ascites, and lack of hospitalizations, but not directly with randomization group. Improvement in MCS was associated with randomization to TIPS and lack of confusion. In conclusion, patients with refractory ascites randomized to TIPS or repeated LVP had similar changes in quality of life. Competing effects of hepatic encephalopathy, requirement for repeated LVP, and need for hospitalizations explain similar changes in quality of life between the two groups.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".