MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518564565 · doi:10.1097/meg.0000000000000731

Multiple biopsy passes and the risk of complications of percutaneous liver biopsy

2016· article· en· W2518564565 on OpenAlexaff
Heng Chi, Bettina E. Hansen, Wing Yin Tang, Jeoffrey Schouten, Dave Sprengers, Pavel Taimr, Harry L.A. Janssen, Robert J. de Knegt

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyOdds ratioLiver biopsyComplicationConfidence intervalMalignancySurgeryRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To minimize the sample variability of liver biopsy, the tissue length should be at least 25 mm. Consequently, more than one biopsy pass is needed with cutting biopsy needles. We aimed to investigate the risk factors of biopsy-related complication, including the number of biopsy passes. METHODS: All consecutive liver biopsies performed between 2005 and 2014 were included. Biopsies were ultrasound assisted and performed with cutting biopsy needles. A complication was an event where the patient visited a healthcare provider because of biopsy-related complaints. Complications followed by hospitalization 2 or more days or intervention were considered severe. RESULTS: In total, 1806 liver biopsies were analyzed. Overall, 102 (5.6%) complications were observed, of which 31 (1.7%) were severe. One (0.06%) patient died. Common complications were pain (n=75/102; 74%) and bleeding (n=34/102; 33%). Two biopsy passes were not associated with an increased risk of complications compared with one biopsy pass [odds ratio (OR): 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-3.04; P=0.16], whereas three or more biopsy passes increased this risk compared with one (OR: 2.97; 95% CI: 1.38-6.42; P=0.005) or two biopsy passes (OR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.10-3.19; P=0.021). The risk of severe complications was not influenced by the number of biopsy passes (P>0.24). Hepatic malignancy (OR: 3.21; 95% CI: 1.18-8.73; P=0.022) and international normalized ratio 1.4 or more (OR: 7.03; 95% CI: 2.74-18.08; P<0.001) were risk factors of severe complications. CONCLUSION: Severe complication rate and mortality were low. Performing multiple biopsy passes was not associated with severe complications, whereas hepatic malignancy or elevated international normalized ratio were associated with an increased risk.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations101
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Gastroenterology & HepatologySame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207