Survival at 2 years among liver cirrhotic patients is influenced by left atrial volume and left ventricular mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy (CC) may interact with the clinical course of cirrhosis and can be implicated in the development of several complications in advanced liver disease. The best and easiest parameters which should define a condition of reduced cardiac reserve in cirrhosis are still controversial. This study was aimed at selecting the cardiac parameters, derived by Doppler echocardiography, predictive of survival during follow-up. METHODS: This study included cirrhotic patients without cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases. Patients were studied in stable conditions. Doppler echocardiography was used to select parameters associated with survival. Among the others, left atrial volume (LAVi) and left ventricular mass indexed to body surface area (LVMi) were evaluated. A comparison was performed with the parameters presently applied for the definition of CC according to the Montreal criteria. RESULTS: Ninety cirrhotic patients have been included (males 66%, alcohol origin 31%, post-viral 54%, Child-Pugh A 53%, B 29% and C 18%). Patients were followed up for at least 24 months. Twenty-six patients had a diagnosis of CC according to the Montreal criteria. During follow-up, 24 patients died. Overall mortality was 26.7%. Patients presenting higher LAVi and lower LVMi were those at higher risk to die (P=.04 and P=.007 respectively). No difference in survival was seen in patients with a diagnosis of CC. CONCLUSIONS: An increased LAVi and a decreased LVMi were able to differentiate among patients with a lower survival at 2 years. These parameters need to be considered for prognostic evaluation in cirrhotics.
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) | 0.002 | 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".