MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2790681385 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.192

A192 CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES OF PATIENTS REFERRED TO THE HEPATOLOGY TRIAGE CLINIC: A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE TO ASSESS AND OPTIMIZE SCREENING PROTOCOLS AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION STRATEGIES FOR MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH NON-ALCOHOLIC FATTY LIVER DISEASE

2018· article· en· W2790681385 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christian F. Rueda‐Clausen, Tracy Davyduke, Mang Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicineTransient elastographyHepatologyCohortInternal medicineLiver diseaseCirrhosisDyslipidemiaFatty liverTriageLiver function testsChronic liver diseaseLiver biopsyCohort studyLiver functionDiseaseEmergency medicineBiopsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common liver disease in adults. Remarkably, its natural history and course is highly variable and poorly understood. It is anticipated that the number of referrals for assessment and management of suspected NAFLD will overwhelm the current installed capacity of the health care system. Therefore, strategies for screening and management of these patients are in demand. To describe a cohort of subjects referred to the Hepatology Triage Clinic (HepTriC) for assessment of abnormal liver function tests and the outcomes of a pilot program for initial screening and management of these patients. Descriptive cross-sectional examination and description of relevant clinical outcomes + cohort assembly. Criteria for referrals to the HepTriC include: Age 16 to 50 y, abnormal ALT (>50 IU/mL), no history of existing chronic liver disease other than NAFLD, no evidence of cirrhosis or acute liver ilnes. Referred patients underwent an Initial assessment that included extended labwork and a transient elastography (Fibroscan) plus controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) performed by a registered nurse. Depending on the results of this assessment, patients were booked for further evaluation by an hepatologist +/- liver biopsy or to be followed in 1 or 2 years (Fig 1a). From Nov-16 to Jun-17, 156 referrals were seen at the HepTriC (mean waiting time= 21d). Cohort baseline characteristics included: 74% Male, 42 ± 10 yrs., BMI 31 ± 6 m/Kg2, diabetes 20.5%, dyslipidemia 30.7%, hypertension 29.5%, AST 40 ± 22 IU/L, ALT 66 ± 34 IU/L, Bilirubin 13 ± 7mM Albumin 44 ± 2 g/L, FIB4 0.99 ± 0.79, APRI 0.46 ± 0.11, NFS -2.3 ± 1.23. Transient elastography assessment was accomplished in 150 (96%) subjects 43% of those required the XL probe. Mean stiffness 7.1 ± 4.5 kPa, (range 3.2 to 36.3 kPa). Mean CAP 318 ± 48 dB/m (range 204 to 400 dB/m). Significant Alcohol use was documented in 28 (18%) patients, from those, 9 (32%) had advance liver fibrosis. NAFLD transient elastography results). Liver stiffness assessed by internal acoustic radiation force (ARFI) was available in 23 patients. The correlation between Fibroscan and ARFI was very poor 5.9%, p=0.8. In total 14 Liver biopsies were performed in patient in whom there was diagnostic uncertainty. Fibroscan but not CAP results have a proportional correlation with the pathology fibrosis scoring. (Fig1b) NAFLD is the most common cause of otherwise unexplained abnormal LFTs. However, alcohol intake and uncommon metabolic conditions need to be explore in this population. Fibroscan seems to have strong correlation with liver pathology results. Fibroscan and ARFI elastography have very poor correlation. Public Health Agency or Canada (PHAC), Digestive Health Strategic Clinical Network (DH-SCN)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→