Prevalence of Liver Disease and Utilization of a Hepatology Consultation Service at an Urban Tertiary Care Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prevalence of liver disease and frequency of consultations to a Hepatology Consultation service for patients with liver enzyme/function abnormalities admitted to a clinical teaching unit at an urban tertiary care hospital have not been previously described. To document these data, a retrospective chart review of adult patients admitted for non-hepatobiliary problems to a general Internal Medicine clinical teaching unit at an urban, tertiary care hospital during a three month period was performed. METHODS: Laboratory test results were reviewed to determine if liver enzymes and function tests had been ordered during the first five days of admission and, in those with abnormal results, whether referrals had been sent to the hospital's Hepatology Consultation service for further investigations and/or management. RESULTS: A total of 506 admissions occurred during the study period. Of these, 452 (89%) were for patients with no known liver disease. Liver biochemistry testing was obtained in 218 (48.2%) of these individuals. In 192 (88.1%), liver enzyme or function tests were abnormal and in 91 (41.7%), both enzymes and function tests were abnormal (suggesting more advanced disease). Referrals to the Hepatology Consultation service were requested for 5/91 (5.5%) patients with more advanced disease and none with only liver enzyme or function tests abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: Although liver enzymes and/or function test abnormalities are common in this patient population, screening for liver disease is relatively uncommon and consultation to a Hepatology Consultation service occurs in less than 10% of cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".