MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617999145 · doi:10.1002/hep.29267

Stratifying risk in the prevention of recurrent variceal hemorrhage: Results of an individual patient meta‐analysis

2017· review· en· W2617999145 on OpenAlexaff
Agustı́n Albillos, Javier Zamora, Javier Martínez, David Arroyo-Manzano, Irfan Ahmad, Joaquin De‐la‐Peña, Juan Carlos García‐Pagán, Gin‐Ho Lo, Shiv Kumar Sarin, Barjesh Chander Sharma, Juan G. Abraldeṣ, Jaime Bosch, Guadalupe García–Tsao

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesEuropean Regional Development FundNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesGilead Sciences
KeywordsMedicineCirrhosisInternal medicineConfidence intervalGastroenterologyIncidence (geometry)Randomized controlled trialPortal hypertensionVaricesSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endoscopic variceal ligation plus beta-blockers (EVL+BB) is currently recommended for variceal rebleeding prophylaxis, a recommendation that extends to all patients with cirrhosis with previous variceal bleeding irrespective of prognostic stage. Individualizing patient care is relevant, and in published studies on variceal rebleeding prophylaxis, there is a lack of information regarding response to therapy by prognostic stage. This study aimed at comparing EVL plus BB with monotherapy (EVL or BB) on all-source rebleeding and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and previous variceal bleeding stratified by cirrhosis severity (Child A versus B/C) by means of individual time-to-event patient data meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials. The study used individual data on 389 patients from three trials comparing EVL plus BB versus BB and 416 patients from four trials comparing EVL plus BB versus EVL. Compared with BB alone, EVL plus BB reduced overall rebleeding in Child A (incidence rate ratio 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.89; P = 0.025) but not in Child B/C, without differences in mortality. The effect of EVL on rebleeding was different according to Child (P for interaction <0.001). Conversely, compared with EVL, EVL plus BB reduced rebleeding in both Child A and B/C, with a significant reduction in mortality in Child B/C (incidence rate ratio 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.85; P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Outcomes of therapies to prevent variceal rebleeding differ depending on cirrhosis severity: in patients with preserved liver function (Child A), combination therapy is recommended because it is more effective in preventing rebleeding, without modifying survival, while in patients with advanced liver failure (Child B/C), EVL alone carries an increased risk of rebleeding and death compared with combination therapy, underlining that BB is the key element of combination therapy. (Hepatology 2017;66:1219-1231).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.057
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations111
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHepatologySame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207